Health Consultation

CONTAMINANT ACCUMULATION POTENTIAL IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS USED BY THE AROOSTOOK BAND OF MICMAC INDIANS AT THE FORMER LORING AIR FORCE BASE

LIMESTONE, AROOSTOOK COUNTY, MAINE

EPA FACILITY ID: ME9570024522

SEPTEMBER 30, 2006

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation

An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material.

In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued.

You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION

CONTAMINANT ACCUMULATION POTENTIAL IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS USED BY THE AROOSTOOK BAND OF MICMAC INDIANS AT THE FORMER LORING AIR FORCE BASE

LIMESTONE, AROOSTOOK COUNTY, MAINE

EPA FACILITY ID: ME9570024522

Prepared by:

Federal Facilities Assessment Branch Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents...... i

List of Tables ...... ii

Background ...... 1 Purpose and Statement of Issues ...... 1 Loring Air Force Base History ...... 1 Previous ATSDR Evaluations ...... 2

Reuse Issues ...... 3 Reuse Issues...... 3 Areas of Concern ...... 3 Contaminants Identified at LAFB ...... 5

Resource of Interest: Plants ...... 8 General Information ...... 8 Factors that Influence the Accumulation of Contaminants ...... 9 Site Specific Information...... 10 Potential for Contaminant Accumulation ...... 11 Metals ...... 11 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) ...... 18 Other Contaminants of Concern at LAFB...... 19 Ways to Minimize Exposure ...... 20 Recommendations for sampling plants with highest potential for contamination ...... 21

Resource of Interest: Fish and Wildlife ...... 22 General Information ...... 22 Factors that Influence the Accumulation of Contaminants ...... 23 Potential for Contaminant Accumulation ...... 26 Metals ...... 26 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) ...... 32 Other Contaminants of Concern at LAFB...... 34 Ways to Minimize Exposure ...... 37 Recommendations for sampling fish and wildlife with highest potential to contribute to human exposures...... 37

Potential for Human Exposure...... 38

References...... 51

i ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Surface Water Sampling Within Operable Unit13 at LAFB ...... 6

Table 2: Sediment Sampling Within Operable Unit 13 at LAFB ...... 7

Table 3. Common Native Plants Used by the Micmac Tribe ...... 10

Table 4a: Cadmium Bioconcentration Factors for Selected Crops...... 12

Table 4b: Lead Bioconcentration Factor...... 13

Table 4c: Zinc Bioconcentration Factors for Selected Crops ...... 14

Table 4d: Mercury Bioconcentration Factors for Selected Crops ...... 16

Table 4e: Barium Bioconcentration Factor...... 17

Table 4f: Silver Bioconcentration Factor...... 18

Table 5: PCB Bioconcentration Factors for Selected Crops...... 19

Table 6: Common Indigenous Fish and Wildlife Harvested by the Micmac Tribe...... 24

Table 7: Contaminants Detected in Fish Samples Collected at LAFB ...... 25

Table 8a: Cadmium concentrations detected in different wildlife species ...... 27

Table 8b: Mercury concentrations detected in different wildlife species ...... 29

Table 8c: Lead concentrations detected in different wildlife species ...... 30

Table 8d: PCB concentrations detected in different fish and wildlife species ...... 35

Table 8e: Other POPs concentrations detected in different fish and wildlife species ...... 36

Table 9: Common Plant and Animal Resources near LAFB: Potential for Human Exposure to Contaminants ...... 40

ii ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

BACKGROUND

Purpose and Statement of Issues The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) developed this health consultation to address concerns expressed by the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians (referred to as the Micmac Tribe) about the safety of using plant and animal resources from the Loring Air Force Base (LAFB) lands recently transferred to the Tribe or to adjacent properties that the Tribe may use for traditional practices. With input from representatives from the Micmac Tribe, ATSDR has prepared this health consultation. This evaluation is based on a review of the scientific literature specifically pertaining to the accumulation potential of contaminants in plants, fish, and wildlife. It is important to note that ATSDR did not conduct an exhaustive review of all the scientific literature. The objective was to provide perspective about whether the contaminants of concern identified during environmental monitoring efforts at LAFB are likely to accumulate in the plant and animal resources traditionally used by the tribe.

In March 1999, ATSDR released a public health assessment (PHA) for LAFB. In the PHA, ATSDR evaluated ways in which people could come in contact with contaminants released from LAFB and whether that contact was likely to result in adverse health effects. As part of the PHA process, ATSDR compiled and addressed community concerns related to the site. After release of the PHA, representatives of the Micmac Tribe expressed concerns about the potential of certain plant or animal species to accumulate contaminants in soil, surface water, and sediment previously released during LAFB-related activities (ATSDR 1999a).

The Micmac Tribe in the vicinity of LAFB currently lists more than 16,000 registered Micmac members, but their actual membership in both Canada and the United States is much higher, perhaps as many as 25,000. Canada has 28 separate groups of Micmac. But only one Micmac tribe is currently recognized in the United States. The 500-member Aroostook Band of Micmac in northern Maine received state recognition in 1973 and federal status in 1991 (Figure 1).

Loring Air Force Base History LAFB, originally named Limestone Air Force Base, was activated in February 1953 as a Strategic Air Command base and manned by the 42nd Bombardment Wing. LAFB closed on September 30, 1994, pursuant to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, following recommendations from the Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission.

The closed base is located in Aroostook County at the northeastern tip of Maine, about two miles northwest of the town of Limestone, eight miles northeast of Caribou, and five miles west of the border of New Brunswick, Canada. The site covers an area of approximately 9,400 acres (14.6 square miles) in the lower Aroostook River Basin and is bounded on the north and northwest by the townships of Caswell and Connor, respectively. The site is in a rural area with an approximate population of 1,500 within a one–mile radius.

1 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

The property that was previously LAFB was designated the Loring Commerce Centre (LCC) and divided into parcels for transfer to other government and commercial organizations under guidelines set forth by BRAC legislation. The Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA) has transferred all property; 58 percent of the property has been transferred to other federal agencies and 42 percent of the property going to public organizations and non-federal (state and local) government agencies. AFRPA, in concert with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, is coordinating remedial investigations and actions to comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and state solid waste and underground storage tank requirements. These requirements are to ensure no hazards remain that could adversely affect persons or the environment during subsequent use of the property (AFBCA 1996).

Before the currently established environmental regulations, previously accepted hazardous material handling and disposal practices resulted in environmental contamination at various areas on base. Hazardous wastes generated on the base included waste oils, fuels cleaned from aircraft and vehicles, spent solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. Historically, wastes have been burned or buried in landfills. As a result, LAFB was included on the USEPA’s National Priorities List in February of 1990. The Air Force conducted an initial assessment of potentially contaminated areas beginning in 1983 and identified a number of Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Sites. There were over 50 IRP sites on the LAFB property, divided among 15 Operable Units (OUs). Installation-wide investigations and site restorations continue under this program, although most clean up actions have been completed.

Previous ATSDR Evaluations ATSDR personnel conducted site-visit evaluations at LAFB during the periods September 17-20, 1991, July 26-28, 1994, and May 13-15, 1997. ATSDR released four health consultations that addressed specific contamination and public health issues. The 1991 health consultation evaluated groundwater concerns and recommended continued monitoring and hydrologic characterization of the site to ensure that drinking water wells off base did not become contaminated from on-base releases. In 1994, ATSDR released two health consultations to address radiological and chemical contamination related to the on-base power plant. The fourth health consultation in 1997 addressed the presence of volatile organic compound (VOC) contaminants in sediments and surface water at the Flight Line Drainage Ditch (FLDD) and the Power Plant Drainage Pipe (PPDP) and determined that air-quality in the on-base residential areas was not adversely impacted.

In 1999, ATSDR released a public health assessment that evaluated the environmental information at IRP sites within the various OUs and assessed the potential for human exposure in each case. Additionally, ATSDR evaluated six specific exposure situations 1) catching fish from area waters, 2) drinking water from area water wells, 3) wading and swimming in on-site waterways, 4) future land use by new occupants, 5) contact with water at Limestone Stream, and 6) volatile contaminants in the air. ATSDR determined that contamination released from LAFB did not present a public health hazard based on the assumptions made about exposure frequency, duration, and contacted media given the fish advisory and groundwater well restrictions in place. ATSDR’s public health assessment for Loring Air Force Base can be found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/loring/laf_p1.html

2 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

REUSE OF FORMER LAFB PROPERTY

Reuse Issues LAFB property transfer has been completed. The former LAFB property was partitioned into sections A-F with numerical subsets noting non-contiguous areas (Figure 2). Clean up continues on a few parcels that remain in Air Force control. Additionally, institutional controls are in place at some parcels where complete clean up was not possible due the nature of the contamination or financial constraints. This health consultation addresses the contaminants that may remain in soil, sediment, or surface water at very low levels, but which may be of concern for animals and humans high up the food chain. On the basis of information gathered during our investigations and concerns expressed by Tribal representatives, ATSDR has reviewed the most current environmental sampling data for parcels of interest at LAFB, compiled information from the scientific literature related to specific factors that increase or reduce the potential for the selected contaminants of concern to accumulate in plant and animal species.

Areas of Concern Parcel D (including D-1 and subsets) contains approximately 608 acres that has been transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with subsequent transfer planned to the Micmac Tribe. Parcel E (including E-1 and subsets) contains 4,112 acres that have been transferred to the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Both areas may be used by the Micmac Tribal members. Some areas within these parcels have be designated as having use restriction zones (URZ) due to soil contaminant issues and groundwater management zones (GMZ) where groundwater use is restricted. Figure 2 shows the parcels and the current institutional controls. Institutional controls within Parcel D include the Industrial Area GMZ 1, Fuel Tank Farm GMZ 2, and URZ, and the Fly Ash Disposal Site URZ.

As part of the Air Force environmental investigations (CERCLA, SARA, and IRP), base-wide surface water, sediment, and associated biological sampling at the former LAFB was designated as OU 13. OU 13 overlaps large portions of Parcels D and D-1. Operable Unit 13 includes brooks, streams, ditches, lakes, ponds, and wetlands across approximately 30 square miles of watershed. Because of the size of the area and the number of drainage systems involved, Operable Unit 13 was subdivided into three primary study areas. The study areas are the three major watersheds that comprise the geographic area in and around the LAFB and include: Wolverton Brook/Brandy Brook Greenlaw Brook, and Butterfield Brook/Limestone Stream (ABBES 1997a).

These brooks receive runoff from the western portion of LAFB as well as off-base areas west of the base, and flow south-westerly into Little Madawaska River. The Little Madawaska River is a relatively broad, but shallow, river located approximately 1.5 miles west of the base boundary. The Little Madawaska River flows south approximately 7 miles and merges with the Aroostook River. The Butterfield Brook also flows east of the base to Aroostook River (MWH Americas 2005).

Sediment, surface water, and some fish data are available to evaluate risks that might be posed by contamination in brooks, streams, and ponds at LAFB. Much of this information is contained

3 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

in the Base-wide Surface Water/Sediment Operable Unit (OU13) Remedial Investigation Report. The Air Force calculated acceptable risks and corresponding soil and sediment cleanup levels based on future land-use scenarios (residential, recreational, industrial/commercial) as defined in the Record of Decision for Disposal of LAFB, Maine(AFBCA 1996). Using environmental sampling data as a guide, AFRPA contractors performed removal actions to comply with state and federal clean-up standards. In the 1999 public health assessment, ATSDR concurred with the recommendation for people to comply with the established fishing advisories and restrictions for groundwater use and determined that wading and swimming did not pose a health hazard to adults or children (ABBES 1997a, 1997b). Wolverton Brook and Brandy Brook are southwestwardly flowing tributaries of the Little Madawaska River, which itself flows south toward its confluence with the Aroostook River southeast of the town of Caribou. Wolverton Brook and Brandy Brook are located along the western side of LAFB and is approximately 4,600 acres in size; with about 700 acres within LAFB boundaries (ABBES 1997a). The flightline drainage ditch is located in the south-central part of the base, west of the flight line area and south of the nose-dock area. The flightline drainage ditch is an unlined, drainage channel that is 20 to 25 feet wide and approximately 2,500 feet long. The flightline drainage ditch extends from a triple-culvert headwall and drains the flight line area. It passes through the Spill Containment Facility continues through the flightline drainage ditch wetland, and flows into the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook, which joins the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook before the confluence of Greenlaw Brook with the Little Madawaska River. The spill containment facility is an oil-water separator located on the western bank of the lower end of the flightline drainage ditch and upstream of the flightline drainage ditch wetland. Spill Containment Facility sediment "hot-spots" were excavated and properly disposed of during OU13 remediation (ABBES 1997b). The January 8, 1997, ATSDR Health Consultation for LAFB recommended that wading in the flightline drainage ditch be prohibited due to an increased exposure risk attributable to levels of PCBs found in water sampled from the flightline drainage ditch and wetland area. A remedial action was undertaken in the summer of 1997 to excavate areas of the flightline drainage ditch wetland, and East Branch of Greenlaw Brook to remove PCBs and other contaminants. Work was completed on the flightline drainage ditch and flightline drainage ditch wetland during 1997. Post remediation sampling of sediment and water by AFRPA contractors confirmed that current PCB levels were at or below the acceptable concentrations of 1 ppm PCBs in stream sediment and 5 ppm in flood-plain sediment. The remediation plan is outlined in the Record of Decision for OU13. All remaining excavation work was completed by the end of 1998 and long-term monitoring has been in place to assess the effectiveness of the remediation process (ABBES 1997b). East Branch of Greenlaw Brook begins in a wetland south of the Fuels Tank Farm, flowing west for about 2,500 feet to its confluence with the flightline drainage ditch wetland drainage. The East Branch of Greenlaw Brook combines with the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook and then eventually merges with the Little Madawaska River. A total of 29 IRP sites are located near the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook, and several are known to have contributed contaminants, including the Fuels Tank Farm, Base Laundry, Refueling Maintenance Shop Area, and Coal Storage Pile/Fly Ash Area. The East Branch of Greenlaw Brook has also been impacted by

4 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

contaminants flowing downstream from the flight line area via the flightline drainage ditch and wetland. Primary contaminants in the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), chlorinated pesticides (including DDT metabolites and chlordane), PCBs, and lead, among other inorganics/metals (ABBES 1997a). The West Branch of Greenlaw Brook begins in a wetland north of the flight line area, about 750 feet west of the base boundary. The West Branch of Greenlaw Brook flows south onto base property, passes west of the Quarry and Nose Dock area, and forms Malabeam Lake. Upon leaving the lake the watercourse forms and then exits Chapman Pit Pond. About 3.4 miles from its source the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook merges with the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook. The West Branch of Greenlaw Brook Study Area contains five IRP sites, including the Quarry, the Nose Dock Area, the Base Exchange Service Station, Landfill 1, and the Chapman Pit Disposal Area. Green Pond, beaver ponds, and several drainage ditches and wetlands are also within this study area. The primary contaminants detected in the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook Study Area were PAHs, TPHs, and metals such as cadmium, lead, manganese, silver, barium, and zinc (ABBES 1997a). Little Madawaska River flows south from the dam forming the Madawaska Reservoir and follows a course about 1.5 miles west of the LAFB boundary. Its tributaries include Wolverton, Brandy, and Greenlaw Brooks. The Little Madawaska River joins the Aroostook River a few miles south and east of the city of Caribou. Greenlaw Brook is the primary pathway carrying base-related contaminants toward the Little Madawaska River. However, chemical analysis of pre-design and OU13 Remedial Investigation samples of Greenlaw Brook sediments west of the culvert plunge pool under Sawyer Road showed concentrations of PCBs to be below the remediation goals of 1 ppm for stream sediments and 5 ppm for sediments or soil in the floodplain (ABBES 1997a). Butterfield Brook flows south onto the eastern side of LAFB and into East Loring Lake, a 40 acre impoundment surrounded by the Weapons Storage Area. Willard Brook joins Butterfield Brook as the latter flows from East Loring Lake to Durepo Reservoir, an 80-acre, man-made water body just south of the base boundary. The flow from the reservoir is joined by Durepo Stream from the east to form Limestone Stream. Limestone Stream enters the Aroostook River 10 miles further south. There are a number of IRP sites within the Butterfield Brook/Limestone Stream Study Area that might contribute contaminants to surface water, including the Railroad Maintenance Site, Fire Training Area, Underground Transformer Site, and the 9,000 Debris Area. The Underground Transformer Site Wetland required excavation to achieve clean-up goals that meet state and federal standards (ABBES 1997a, 1997b).

Contaminants Identified at LAFB On the basis of discussions with representatives of the Micmac Tribe, ATSDR has included discussion of the following contaminants: metals or inorganics — barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc; pesticides — chlordane and DDT (DDD, and DDE); PCBs, PAHs, and petroleum compounds. Long-term monitoring of contaminants at OU 13 was initiated in 2001. Recent environmental sampling reported in the 2001 and 2003 long-term monitoring reports are presented in Tables 1 (surface water) and 2 (sediments) below. The primary contaminants in the

5 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

East Branch of Greenlaw Brook sediments include PAHs, benzo(a) pyrene; PCBs (PCBs may be reported as Arochlor 1260, which is a common trade name); pesticides, diesel range organics (DRO), and lead. PCBs and low levels of pesticides have also been detected in fish tissue samples collected in the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook. The primary contaminants in the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook include PAHs, lead, and zinc (ABBES 1997a).

Table 1: Surface Water Sampling Within Operable Unit 13 at LAFB Contaminant Historical Max. Recent Sampling Screening Conc (ppb) (2001) (ppb) Value (ppb) Flight Line Drainage Lead 5 2.8 151 Ditch (FLDD) East Branch of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 2J 0.1 52 Greenlaw Brook Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.04 0.23 (EBGB) Lead 3J 3.7 151 Source: Woodlot Alternatives, Inc 2002

1 This screening value represents EPA’s action level for lead in drinking water 2 This screening level represents EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PCE in drinking water 3 This screening value represents EPA’s MCL for benzo(a)pyrene in drinking water

J = Estimated value ND = Below method detection limit Conc = concentration Max = maximum ppb = parts per billion

6 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 2: Sediment Sampling Within Operable Unit 13 at LAFB Contaminant Historical Recent Recent Screening Source of Maximum Conc. Sampling Sampling Value Screening (ppm) 2001 (ppm) 2003 (ppm) Value Flight Line PAH -Benzo(a)pyrene 13 (floodplain) 0.2 NA 0.1 CREG Drainage PCBs (Aroclor 1260) 6.4 (stream) 0.46* NA 0.32 RBC Ditch Chlordane (Total) 0.64 (stream) 0.005 NA 2 CREG (FLDD) 4,4’- DDT/DDD/DDE 0.49 (floodplain) 0.01 NA 2 CREG DRO NA 0.34 NA 100 ME NL Lead 474 (floodplain) 133 NA 400 EPA

East Branch PAH -Benzo(a)pyrene NA 0.04 NA 0.1 CREG of Greenlaw PCBs (Aroclor 1260) 10 (stream) 0.54 0.17 0.32 RBC Brook (EBGB) Chlordane (Total) 0.1 (stream) ND 0.01 2 CREG 4,4’- DDT/DDD/DDE 0.37 (stream) 0.01 0.04 2 CREG DRO NA 50 NA 100 ME NL Lead 126 (stream) 15.1 NA 400 EPA

West Branch PAH -Benzo(a)pyrene NA NA NA 0.1 CREG Greenlaw PCBs (Aroclor 1260) NA ND NA 0.32 RBC Brook Chlordane (Total) NA ND NA 2 CREG (WBGB) 4,4’- DDT/DDD/DDE NA ND NA 2 CREG DRO NA 10 NA 100 ME NL Lead 427 13.1 NA 400 EPA Zinc 952 96.1 NA 200,000 EMEGc

Butterfield PAH -Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 CREG Brook PCBs (Aroclor 1260) 1 ND NA 0.32 RBC Chlordane (Total) 1.3 ND NA 2 CREG 4,4’- DDT/DDD/DDE 0.18 ND NA 2 CREG DRO NA 4.6 NA 100 ME NL Lead 302 8* NA 400 EPA Zinc 201 106 NA 200,000 EMEGc Zinc 201 106 NA 200,000 EMEGc Source: Woodlot Alternatives, Inc 2002; 2004

* = estimated value ND = Below method detection limit NA = Not Available; CREG = ATSDR’s cancer risk evaluation guide RBC = EPA’s Region III risk based concentration EMEGc = ATSDR’s chronic Environmental Media Evaluation Guide DRO = Diesel range organics (METHOD Corrected) ME NL = State of Maine notification level

Note: Cadmium, barium, silver, and mercury were not analyzed for in sediment at any sampling locations Zinc was only analyzed at the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook and Butterfield Brook

Screening Values used here as perspective. They are considered to be “overly protected” and assume a daily exposure (ingestion) for 30 or 70 years without deleterious health effects.

7 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Under environmental programs, the Air Force sampled surface water, sediment, soil, groundwater, and fish for contaminants with concurrences by Maine Department of Environmental Protection and USEPA. The Air Force has completed or is in process of cleaning up sites that have contamination at levels considered to pose unacceptable risk to adults or children by way of direct contact. Where cleanup is ongoing or contaminants remain, land use restrictions have been established.

Unrestricted areas do not contain contaminants that would pose a health hazard to adults or children. However, concern has been expressed about low levels of residual contaminants that could be accumulated by plants and animals, concentrating up the food chain, and eventually used for food or for other purposes by people. Sampling for contaminants present in all the natural resources available to Tribal members would present a monumental task. Based on the current information and available sampling results, there is no evidence that chemicals are present at levels of health concern. Sampling to date has been conducted for surface water, groundwater, soil, and sediment; with limited sampling of plants and animals that may be utilized by locals.

In the sections that follow, ATSDR provides information compiled from various scientific sources to help individuals determine which plants and animals, and which specific parts of those resources, are known to accumulate contaminants. In this way, individuals can make informed decisions about their natural resource use and their health.

RESOURCE OF INTEREST: PLANTS

General Information Native populations use plant materials for a wide variety of purposes. Subsistence use of such plant products as roots and tubers, stalks, leaves, berries, and nuts provide essential nutrients to native people. The use of plants for medicinal purposes is widespread, as is the use of tobacco. Tobacco, sweet grass, cedar, and sage have important religious and ceremonial significance. The use of grasses and other plant resources for basket, box, and tool making, textiles, matting, dyes, paints, and soaps also can be observed in the cultures of numerous Native American groups (DOI-BLM 2005).

The wide use of plant materials by the MicMac Tribe presents numerous exposure possibilities if plant resources are gathered from contaminated lands. Plants have the potential to accumulate contaminants from soils, surface waters and sediments. Contaminants may also be deposited on the surface of plants from pollutants that are circulated in the air. In addition, people who harvest plant resources may be exposed to contaminants through frequent contact with contaminated soils and sediments.

In general, plants do not bioaccumulate (the term bioaccumulation represents the process that takes place when chemicals accumulate in tissues at higher levels than are found in the environmental media they are exposed to) most contaminants as efficiently as animals since plants are at the bottom of the food chain. Contaminants accumulate in terrestrial vegetation by either 1) direct uptake (i.e., absorption) of contaminants from soil to the roots, 2) dry deposition on aerial parts (particle-bound or gaseous), or 3) wet deposition on aerial parts

8 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

(particle-bound or solute). Aquatic plants accumulate most contaminants either in the root systems from sediments or from the surrounding water, with wet deposition and adherence to plant parts being more important than dry deposition.

Plant tissues may accumulate and store contaminants, especially certain metals (e.g., selenium and zinc) that provide nutrients to the plant. Under normal circumstances (e.g., non- contaminated soils), organic (e.g., pesticides, PCBs, and other chlorinated compounds) and inorganic (i.e., metals) contaminants are rarely found at concentrations in plant tissues that would pose a human health hazard (ATSDR 2003a; 2003b; ERG 2001). Heavy metals (i.e., metals with high molecular weights) such as lead, cadmium, and mercury may be present in trace amounts in plant tissues. However, these metals are usually not accumulated to edible portions of the plant at levels that would be of human health concern (ERG 2001).

A review of the scientific literature indicates that most plants do not contain chemical concentrations in their tissues that are higher than the contaminant levels in the soils that they grow on. In fact, when soils contain adequate plant nutrients and pH-balanced (i.e., not too acidic), metals and other contaminants are generally not absorbed much at all in plant tissues beyond the roots. There are, however, exceptions to this general statement regarding plant accumulation of contaminants. The information presented below is important to consider before deciding whether to harvest and use plant materials for foods, medicines, or other culturally important activities. Washing plants significantly reduces the amount of contaminants present on the outer plant tissues.

Factors that Influence the Accumulation of Contaminants The availability of soil contaminants to plants is controlled by many factors. Soil pH is considered one of the most important factors controlling the plant’s ability to bioaccumulate certain metals (e.g., cadmium, lead, and zinc). Soil pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity in the soil. Many heavy metals become more water soluble under acidic conditions. A soil pH is considered acidic if it is below 7.0 (7.0 is neutral). Any soil pH below 6.0 is considered strongly acidic (USDA 1998). Strongly acidic soil allows metals to be absorbed into the root system and distributed more readily throughout the plant (Dudka and Miller 1999). Soils at Loring are considered acidic and tend to take up metals more easily. Other important factors that influence the potential for plants to accumulate contaminants and contribute to human exposures include:

The portion of the plant that is harvested — fruits and berries are less likely to accumulate contaminants from the soil because of physiological processes which prevent metals and some other contaminants from being distributed to the tops of plants. Contaminants can be deposited onto plant surfaces, but exposure can be minimized by washing and/or peeling the edible portions of the plant (ERG 2001);

Phytoavailability — the extent that metals are available to be absorbed and taken up by plants. Some metals are used by the plant as nutrients and can be distributed throughout the shoots and leaves. Heavy metals are toxic to most plants, but those

9 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

plants with higher tolerances for heavy metals tend to store them in the root cells and not in above ground portions of the plant (ERG 2001);

Phytotoxicity —this occurs when the concentrations of contaminants in the edible plant harm or kill the plant. In most situations, plant growth is retarded and the phytotoxic effects are evident before the levels become harmful to humans. Plants exhibiting phytotoxicity have visible signs including yellowing of leaves; necrosis of leaf tips, stunting, low yields of fruits or vegetables, and eventual plant death. Common metals that exhibit phytotoxicity at levels below human health concern include zinc, copper, nickel, cobalt, and manganese (ERG 2001); and

The bioavailability of metals — the extent to which plants store contaminants in a form that can be absorbed and metabolized by people.

Site Specific Information Table 3 provides common plants used by the Micmac Tribe near LAFB.

Table 3. Common Native Plants Used by the Micmac Tribe Black Ash, White Ash Wild raspberries Sweet grass Alders Gooseberry / Currant Goldthread root White Spruce Blueberry Cattail Poplar and Willow Chokecherries Sweet flag rhizome Hazelnut Fiddlehead ferns Burdock roots and shoots Note: Information for this table was provided by Fred Cory (Environmental Director for the Micmac Tribe) and Barbara Harper (Draft Provisional Exposure Factors for LAFB). The plant species listed in this table represent some of the more important species utilized by the Tribe and are found near LAFB. This is not meant to represent the only plant species that are utilized by the Micmac Tribe, only the most common ones.

10 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Potential for Contaminant Accumulation

Metals

When evaluating the potential for human exposure to metals from plant materials, it is important to make the distinction between the metals that are known to readily accumulate in plants and are essential for plant growth (e.g., zinc and magnesium) and those that are not readily taken up and are harmful to plants (e.g., lead and cadmium).

An important principle in plant physiology that influences the potential for human exposure from consuming edible plants is the soil-plant barrier. This barrier involves processes that typically prevent the accumulation of potentially toxic heavy metals. These metals are often toxic to plants at levels below which they are toxic to animals and humans. There are exceptions that reduce the effectiveness of the soil-plant barrier. One of the most important exceptions occurs under conditions where plants are deficient in phosphate. Without phosphates plants can readily accumulate certain metals (e.g., cadmium, selenium) into their tissues (ERG 2001).

A few species of metal accumulating plants commonly referred to as hyperaccumulators can tolerate high levels of certain metals. For example, alpine pennycress (Thlaspi caerulescens), common in the western part of the U.S., can concentrate cadmium in its leaves up to 1,500 ppm and zinc up to 30,000 ppm. These levels are between 100 and 1,000 times higher than typical concentrations observed in non-hyperaccumulator plants (Agricultural Research 2000). Willow commonly grows along streams or on river bottomlands where ground water is generally at shallow depth and readily available. Cadmium may concentrate in willow leaves and leaf buds to as much as 100 times the levels found in soil (Erdman et. al., 2003)

Under ideal circumstances, all plant materials could be sampled and the levels of contaminants in different portions of the plants measured. However, this type of sampling effort is time consuming, expensive, and generally not feasible. Researchers have developed alternative methods for estimating contaminant levels in plant tissues. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) may be used to predict the accumulation of specific chemicals in plant or animal tissues based on the concentration of the chemicals in the surrounding environment. The BCF is defined as the concentration of the chemical in the plant/animal tissue at equilibrium divided by the concentration of the chemical in the medium being measured (e.g., soil, water).

The following metals were identified as contaminants of concern (COCs) during environmental sampling at LAFB. The metals are listed in order of highest potential to contribute to human exposure under various traditional exposure scenarios. When available, BCFs are presented for selected crops.

Cadmium — Many aquatic plants have the ability to accumulate cadmium, primarily in the roots, but also to some extent in the stem and leaves. An important factor affecting plant accumulation of cadmium is soil pH. The application of phosphate fertilizer and highly acidic soils are factors that contribute to the accumulation of cadmium from soil into plant tissues.

11 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Some studies have shown that higher concentrations of lead in soil also increase the amount of cadmium taken up by some plant species. The highest concentrations of cadmium are typically found in leafy vegetables such as spinach and lettuce as well as tobacco, mushrooms, and some root vegetables.

Most research on cadmium accumulation in food crops indicates that the highest risk for cadmium exposure in the food chain is when there are insufficient levels of zinc in the soil. A deficiency in zinc in soil results in additional accumulation of available cadmium from soil (ERG 2001). Table 4a presents cadmium BCFs for selected crops. There are two plant species that are known to accumulate cadmium at much higher concentrations than other plants. Such plants are often referred to as “hyperaccumulators.” The two known species of cadmium hyperaccumulators include penny cress (Thlaspi caerulescens) and Brassicaceae cress (Arabidopsis halleri). These two plant species are able to accumulate greater than 100 ppm of cadmium in the leaves.

Table 4a:Cadmium Bioconcentration Factors for Selected Crops Item Sample Size pH Range Range Geometric (Alkaline to acidic1) Mean Grains and cereals 14 8.0―4.4 0.002 ―0.346 0.36 Potato 14 8.0―4.7 0.002 ― 0.076 0.008 Leafy Vegetables 71 8.4―4.6 0.002 ― 14.12 0.364 Legumes 14 7.7―5.1 0.002 ― 0.054 0.004 Root Vegetables 25 8.0―4.6 0.002 ― 1.188 0.064 Garden Fruits 19 7.1― 4.6 0.002 ― 1.272 0.09 Sweet Corn 12 7.1―5.1 0.02 ― 0.666 0.118 General (i.e. (17 Studies) NA 0.0107― 22.88 1.7 (AM) Unspecified) 155 Observations Source: EPA 1996; USDOE 1998[general/unspecified]; USDA 1998

Note: The higher the BCF, the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be. AM=Arithmetic Mean NA=Not Available

1 Extremely acid 3.5 – 4.4; Very strongly acid 4.5 – 5.0; Strongly acid 5.1 – 5.5; Moderately acid 5.6 – 6.0 Slightly acid 6.1 – 6.5; Neutral 6.6 – 7.3; Slightly alkaline 7.4 – 7.8; Moderately alkaline 7.9 – 8.4

What studies have found: In plants grown in gardens that had been contaminated with silver mine waste material, the cadmium concentration was highest in the leaves (0.6-11.9 ppm), intermediate in the roots and tubers (0.5-3.6 ppm), and lowest in the fruit (<0.5-2.7 ppm). Soil contaminant levels ranged from 9.2 to 808 ppm (lead), from 0.2 to 14.2 ppm (cadmium), and from 8.4 to 484 ppm (zinc) (Boon and Soltanpour 1992). Additionally, studies that have measured cadmium in washed and unwashed lettuce leaves have demonstrated that washing lettuce leaves removed over 50 percent of the cadmium (Thornton 1992).

Lead — The soil-plant barrier is usually effective in limiting the amount of lead accumulated by plants. Small amounts of lead may be transferred from the soil into the roots of plants, but lead is not typically accumulated in high concentrations in the edible aboveground portion of the plant. This is generally due to the low solubility (ability for a substance to dissolve in water) of lead in the soil, which influence the mobility of lead within the plant. However, cessation of growth in late summer and fall may be accompanied by increased mobilization of lead from roots into the plant tops. Some of the important variations in plant accumulation

12 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

of lead are due to plant age and species, organic matter content, soil phosphorus level, pH, soil texture, climate, topography, pollution, and geological history of the soil. The amount of lead accumulated into the plant tissues decreases as pH, cation-exchange capacity (a measure of the soils ability to retain essential nutrients), and available phosphorus of the soil increases.

Lead on leafy parts of plants generally result from deposition from air. Under normal conditions, even when plants are grown in soil containing substantial amounts of lead, only a very small percentage of total soil lead is accumulated by the plant. This is assuming that all lead particulates are thoroughly washed from the plant surface before being analyzed. In general, soil contamination on the plant (e.g., small particles of soil that are on the surface of the plant) may be the most significant source of exposure for people (ERG 2001). Table 4b presents range and arithmetic mean lead BCFs for sampled crops.

Table 4b:Lead Bioconcentration Factor Item Sample Size Range Arithmetic Mean General (i.e. (19 Studies) 0.0001― 10.6 0.34 Unspecified) 133 Observations Source: USDOE 1998

Note: The higher the BCF, the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be. Information regarding pH was not available.

What studies have found: Studies conducted on contaminated sites or in areas known to contain high concentrations of lead in soil, sediment, and surface waters have demonstrated that under certain conditions plants can accumulate high levels of lead. Occasionally, the concentrations are high enough to pose a human health concern. For example, aquatic plants from the Chesapeake Bay region contained 2.2-18.9 ppm lead (dry weight). Aquatic bryophytes (i.e., non-flowering plants comprising mosses, liverworts, and hornworts) contained 34-49,400 ppm lead (dry weight), which correlated well with the concentration of dissolved lead in the streams (National Park Service 1997a).

Pasture vegetation growing in an abandoned lead mining area (soil pH 4 and soil lead levels 3,600 ppm) accumulated up to 74 ppm lead (dry weight basis) in their leaves. Corn plants accumulated lead up to 38 ppm from lead-contaminated soil, but the kernels from the plants grown in lead-contaminated soil did not contain significantly more lead than the kernels from the plants grown in non-contaminated soil (0.3-0.5 ppm). Lettuce and radishes also accumulated lead from soil. Studies have also shown that both tree lichens and mosses are capable of accumulating lead (National Park Service 1997a).

The hyperaccumulation of lead is rare due to the limited amount of “free lead” (Pb 2) available in soil for absorption. Since lead bonds strongly with soil minerals and organic matter, it is difficult for plants to extract it from the soil and into its roots. Once lead is absorbed by the plant, it complexes with plants nutrients limiting its ability to be translocated to the harvestable shoots (Fiegl J.L. et al.). The following plant species were identified as having the greatest potential to hyperaccumulate lead.

13 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Scientific Name Common Name Armeria maritime Seapink thrift Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed Brassica juncea Indian mustard Brassica napus Rape, Rutabaga, Turnip Brassica oleracea Flowering/ornamental kale & cabbage, Broccoli Festuca ovina Blue/sheep fescue Helianthus annuus Sunflower Thlaspi rotundifolium Pennycress Triticum aestivum Wheat (scout) Zea mays Corn Source: Fiegl J.L. et al (Date unknown) http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/ehe/html_kag/kimweb/MEOP/

Zinc — Levels of zinc found in most common plants are rarely at levels of human health concern. At high enough concentrations, zinc will be toxic to the plant well before it reaches a level that is known to be harmful to people. A few plant species (primarily Thlaspi – member of the broccoli and cabbage family) that hyperaccumulate zinc grows in Europe. However, these plants are not common in the eastern United States (ERG 2001). The concentration of zinc in plants depends on the plant species, soil pH, and the composition of the soil. Plant species do not concentrate zinc above the levels present in soil (ATSDR 2003b). Among food crops, the spinach/beet family and lettuce are known to accumulate zinc more readily than other crops. However, there is no evidence in the scientific literature that the levels of zinc that can accumulate in these food crops pose a risk to consumers. Table 4c presents zinc BCFs for selected crops.

Table 4c:Zinc Bioconcentration Factors for Selected Crops Item Sample Size pH Range Range Geometric (Alkaline to acidic1) Mean Grains and cereals 13 8.0―5.3 0.016 ― 0.37 0.1 Potato 14 8.0―4.7 0.01 ― 0.12 0.024 Leafy Vegetables 47 8.0―4.6 0.012 ― 4.49 0.25 Legumes 10 7.7―5.1 0.002 ― 0.11 0.036 Root Vegetables 20 8.0―4.6 0.002 ― 0.41 0.044 Garden Fruits 21 7.3―4.6 0.002 ― 0.39 0.046 Sweet Corn 8 6.5―5.1 0.02 ― 0.19 0.02 General (i.e. (20 Studies) NA 0.0086― 34.29 1.26 (AM) Unspecified) 164 Observations Source: EPA 1996; USDOE 1998[general/unspecified]; USDA 1998

Note: The higher the BCF, the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be. AM=Arithmetic Mean; NA=Not Available

What studies have found: A typical plant may accumulate about 100 ppm zinc. Thlaspi can accumulate up to 30,000 ppm zinc (USDA 2000). Vegetation may accumulate high levels of zinc if grown on contaminated soils. Corn seedlings grown in a highly contaminated soil (1,425 ppm) had zinc concentration in shoots and roots of 484 and 1,330 ppm (dry weight), respectively. In contrast, seedlings grown in uncontaminated soil (67 ppm) had zinc

14 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

concentrations in shoots and roots of 25 and 21 ppm (dry weight), respectively (ATSDR 2003b). Another study found concentrations of zinc were highest in grass samples collected immediately adjacent to a municipal waste incinerator (136 ppm dry weight) compared to grass samples collected upwind or a distance from the incinerator (17.8–73.8 ppm dry weight). Grasses collected from the Milltown Reservoir Superfund Site in Montana contained zinc at concentrations of 154 and 882 ppm for above- and below-ground samples, respectively. In contrast, samples grown in uncontaminated areas contained zinc at concentrations of 72 and 36 ppm for above- and below-ground samples, respectively. Other studies have not shown significant correlations between zinc concentrations in soils and vegetation (ATSDR 2003b).

Mercury — When mercury is released onto soil, it is strongly bound in the clays and other particles, usually resulting in a low potential for transfer to plants. There is a also a tendency for mercury accumulation to be mostly limited to the roots, indicating that the roots serve as a barrier to accumulation, especially with respect to the movement of mercury from plant roots to plant tops. Thus, large increases in soil mercury levels produce only modest increases in plant mercury levels by direct accumulation from soil. Factors affecting plant accumulation include soil or sediment organic content, carbon exchange capacity, and oxide and carbonate content.

Mercury is found in the environment in different forms. The most common forms of mercury are metallic (i.e., elemental mercury), inorganic, and organic (usually methylmercury). Most mercury present in water, soil, sediment or plants and animals is in the inorganic or organic form (e.g., methylmercury) (University of Texas 2001). The form that the metal takes is important to determining how easily it will be accumulated by plants and animals. Although some wetland plants do accumulate mercury, these plants typically store them in a form that is not readily bioavailable (i.e., more easily absorbed and metabolized) in humans. Mercury concentration in above ground parts of plants appears to largely depend on accumulation of mercury volatilized from the soil. The deposition of the volatilized mercury onto the leaves and shoots of plants poses greater exposure potential to humans than the accumulation of mercury from soil. Table 4d presents mercury BCFs in selected crops.

15 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 4d:Mercury Bioconcentration Factors for Selected Crops Item Sample Size pH Range Range Geometric (Alkaline to acidic1) Mean Grains and cereals 1 7.1―5.3 0.086 ― 0.0854 0.085 Potato 1 7.1―5.3 0.002 ― 0.002 0.002 Leafy Vegetables 9 7.1―5.3 0.002 ― 0.092 0.008 Legumes 3 7.1―5.3 0.002 ― 0.002 0.002 Root Vegetables 6 7.1―5.3 0.002 ― 0.086 0.014 Garden Fruits 7 7.1―5.3 0.002 ― 0.086 0.01 Sweet Corn NA NA 0.02 ― 0.002 0.002 General (i.e. (12 studies) NA 0.0015―12.23 1.51 (AM) Unspecified) 142 observations Source: EPA 1996; USDOE 1998[general/unspecified] Note: The higher the BCF, the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be. AM=Arithmetic Mean NA=Not Available

What studies have found: Most studies show that very little mercury is accumulated from the soil into the shoots of plants, although mercury concentrations in the roots may be significantly elevated and reflect the mercury concentrations of the surrounding soil. For example, a study that measured mercury concentrations in municipal solid waste sludge from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago were found to range from 1.1 to 8.5 ppm, with a mean concentration of 3.3 ppm. About 80–100 percent of the mercury applied to the soils in sewage sludge since 1971 still resided in the top 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) of soil. The contaminated sewage sludge did not increase plant tissue mercury concentrations in corn or wheat grown on the contaminated land. Grasses sampled downwind of a municipal waste incinerator contained up to 0.20 ppm of mercury, with concentrations decreasing with increasing distance from the facility. Background mercury levels in vegetation were usually below 0.1ppm dry weight (ATSDR 1999b).

Mercury in the roots of five species of freshwater vascular plants in the polluted Ottawa River was 10–40 percent higher than in the shoots. Concentration of mercury in the plant tissues exposed to 46, 230, and 460 ppm of inorganic mercury compounds in sediment ranged from 1.7 to 4, 4.8–6, and 6.6–10 ppm, respectively. In contrast, the concentrations of mercury in plant tissues exposed to 46, 230, and 460 ppm of the organic mercury compounds in the sediment ranged from 2.4 to 7.2 ppm, 36–85 ppm, and 115–243 ppm, respectively. The control plants (i.e., no mercury compounds added to the sediments) contained no more than 0.3ppm mercury (ATSDR 1999b).

Most plants contain very little mercury. Mushrooms grown in mercury-contaminated soil may contain levels of mercury that could pose some risk to health, if large amounts were consumed. A survey of raw foods in Germany in 1986 found that grains, potatoes, vegetables, and fruits contained average mercury concentrations of 0.005 to 0.05 ppm fresh weight; however, wild mushrooms contained up to 8.8 ppm of mercury (ATSDR 1999b).

16 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Barium — In general, barium does not accumulate in common plants in sufficient quantities to be toxic to people. Relative to the amount of barium found in soils, only a small portion is typically accumulated by plants. For example, a BCF of 0.4 has been estimated for plants in a Virginia floodplain with a barium soil concentration of 104 ppm. However, barium has been found to bioconcentrate (i.e., accumulate in greater concentrations in the plant or animal tissue than in the medium it is exposed to) in some marine plants by a factor of 400 to 4,000 times the level present in the surrounding water. Some terrestrial plants, such as legumes, forage plants, Brazil nuts, and mushrooms are known to accumulate barium as well. BCFs from 2 to 20 have also been reported for tomatoes and soybeans (ATSDR 2005b). Table 4e presents barium BCFs in sampled crops.

Table 4e:Barium Bioconcentration Factor Item Sample Size Range Arithmetic Mean Tomatoes and soybeans NA 2 ― 20 NA General (i.e. 28 Observations 0.357― 0.915 0.213 Unspecified) Source: USDOE 1998[general/unspecified]; Robinson et al. 1950; ATSDR 2005b

Note: The higher the BCF, the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be. Information regarding pH was not available.

NA = Not Available

What studies have found: The barium content in corn samples from Georgia, Missouri, and Wisconsin collected during a number of field studies ranged from 5 to 150 ppm with mean concentrations ranging from 15 to 54 ppm. Barium was detected in the leaves of corn plants at a mean concentration of 3 ppm. Barium has been found to accumulate in dry tobacco leaves up to 293 ppm. Brazil nuts have notably high concentrations of barium (3,000–4,000 ppm). The barium content in other cultivated plants (e.g., lima beans, cabbage, soybeans, and tomatoes) from Georgia, Missouri, and Wisconsin ranged from 7 to 1,500 ppm with mean concentrations in various plants ranging between 38 and 450 ppm. The highest levels occurred in cabbage from Georgia and soybeans from Missouri and the lowest levels occurring in Georgia tomatoes (ATSDR 2005b).

Barium has also been found in grain stalks, forage plants, red ash leaves, as well as black walnut and hickory trees. In general, those parts of the plants that accumulate barium are seldom used for food (Robinson et al., 1950). In general, reported concentrations of barium in vegetables are relatively low. The highest concentrations have been detected in beets and sweet potatoes (WHO-IPCS 1990).

17 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Silver — Aquatic plants can concentrate silver from their environments. In general, accumulation of silver by terrestrial plants from soils is low. Even if the soil is contaminated with silver or the plants are grown on tailings from silver mines, silver accumulates mostly in the root systems. Table 4f presents silver BCFs in unspecified plant tissues.

Table 4f: Silver Bioconcentration Factor Item Sample Size Range Arithmetic Mean General (i.e. 10 Observations 0.003― 0.04 0.164 Unspecified) Source: USDOE 1998

Note: The higher the BCF, the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be. Information regarding pH was not available.

What studies have found: In terrestrial plants, silver concentrations are usually less than 0.1ppm dry weight and are higher in trees, shrubs, and other plants near regions of silver mining. Seeds, nuts, and fruits may contain higher concentrations of silver than other portions of the plant. In non-contaminated soils considered as background, trees and other plants contained between 0.1 and 1.4 ppm of silver (National Park Service 1997b; WHO 2002; ATSDR 1990).

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Organic compounds such as PCBs or pesticides are more likely to be deposited and adsorbed (i.e., adhering or binding) onto plant surfaces rather than being taken up into the root system. For example, when PCBs are released into the environment in industrialized areas they typically volatilize in the air and are transported through the atmosphere and ocean. PCBs may eventually be deposited on terrestrial or aquatic vegetation a large distance from the original source. In most cases, deposition onto vegetation does not represent a significant human exposure pathway. However, direct and repeated applications of pesticides and other organic compounds may result in greater exposures that could pose a human health concern. The following organic chemicals were detected in soil and/or surface water at LAFB at levels of health concern.

Chlordane— Chlordane can be transported from contaminated soil into plants. The amount taken up varies with plant species and stage of plant development.

What studies have found: A bioconcentration factor of 1.06 was reported in a plant species that grows in water, Hydrilla weed (Hydrillu verticillatu). Chlordane also bioconcentrates in the roots from contaminated sediment and can be transported into the shoots, usually at very low concentrations (ATSDR 1994). Chlordane may accumulate in the roots of some plants at relatively high concentrations.

DDT/DDE/DDD— Although DDT is strongly bound to soil, at least a portion of the compound, and the common breakdown products DDE, and DDD, are available to plants. However, most studies indicate that the major source of DDT contamination in plants is due to volatilized residues from treated soil adhering to the surface of vegetation (ATSDR 2002).

18 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

What studies have found: Studies conducted on oats and peas showed that accumulation of DDT into roots was low and there was little or no evidence of transport to other portions of the plant. Grain, corn, and rice plants can accumulate DDT adsorbed to soil. However, most of the residues were found in the roots of the plant, and the lowest concentration of DDT residues was found in the shoots, indicating low potential for transport to other portions of the plant (ATSDR 2002).

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) — PCB ingestion from plants used for foods or other traditional purposes generally represents a very small proportion of the total dietary PCB intake (ATSDR 2000). Terrestrial vegetation typically accumulate PCBs by vapor-to-plant transfer (PCBs that are volatilized and in a gaseous state in the air). Portions of the plant that are above ground (i.e., aerial) and not coming in contact with the soil (e.g., tomato plant leaves) adsorb more highly chlorinated congeners primarily by vapor-to-plant transfer, while the lower chlorinated congeners are both adsorbed on and absorbed in the above ground portions of the plant. Strong binding of PCBs to soil organic matter and clay inhibits the accumualtion of PCBs in plants through the roots. As a result, root crops, such as potatoes often accumulate the lowest levels of total PCBs. This is quite different from the accumulation of metals in root crops, which typically is expected to be greater than most other portions of the plant. However, higher accumulation of PCBs from soil can occur in certain root crops (e.g., carrots) by attracting the fat-soluble chemicals into the epidermal layer (skin), which typically contains the highest fat content of the plant (ATSDR 2000). Table 5 presents the reported plant BAFs for PCBs in soil.

Table 5: PCB Bioaccumulation Factors for Selected Crops Item Range Carrot < 0.16 (Aroclor 1254) ―1.5 (PCB 52) Corn Aroclor 1254 and 1260 < 1 (Aroclor 1254 and 1260) Lettuce PCB 52 and 153) 0.74 (PCB 153) ― 6.0 (PCB 52) Potato (PCB 52; 101) 0.01 (PCB 101) ― 0.29 (PCB 52) Radish (Aroclor 1254; 1224) 0.005 (Aroclor 1254) ― 0.02 (Aroclor 1224) Soybean sprouts (Aroclor 0.002 1242) Sugarbeat (Aroclor 1254) 0.01 (leaves) ― 0.5 (whole plant) Tomato 0.01 ― 0.64 Source: ATSDR 2000

Note: The higher the BAF, the greater the accumulation in living tissue is likely to be.

What studies have found: Concentrations ranging from less than 10 to 812 parts per billion (ppb) (mean about 20-30 ppb) were detected in plant leaves collected from 15 nations (including USA) during 1984-1985.

Other Contaminants of Concern at LAFB

PAHs— The accumulation of PAHs from soil to plants is generally quite low. Some terrestrial plants can accumulate PAHs from soil via the roots or from air via the foliage. Mosses and lichens have been used to monitor atmospheric deposition of PAHs. Most studies indicate that atmospheric deposition on leaves largely exceeds accumulation from soil by roots as a route of PAH accumulation (ATSDR 1995).

19 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

What studies have found: Ratios of PAH concentrations in vegetation to those in soil have been reported to range from 0.001 to 0.18 for total PAHs and from 0.002 to 0.33 for benzo[a]pyrene. This corresponded to concentrations in the plant material of between 0.1 to 150 ppb (dry weight) for benzo(a)pyrene.

In a study of PAH accumulation from cropland soils conducted in the United Kingdom, elevated concentrations of PAHs in soils were not correlated with concentrations in plant tissues. The PAH concentrations in aboveground plant parts were not strongly related to soil PAH levels but were probably the result of atmospheric deposition. The presence of PAHs in root crop tissues was probably due to soil adhering to the root surfaces. Transfer of PAHs from the root peel to the core appeared to be minimal. This again suggests that simple adsorption onto the peel maybe an important process (ATSDR 1995).

In long-term field studies (20-30 yrs), no evidence was found of elevated PAH concentrations in the above-ground portions of several crop species grown in PAH- contaminated soils. Air-borne sources of PAHs were regarded as the main origin of plant contamination in contaminated and non-contaminated soils. The transfer of PAHs from soil was minimal for root crops, and essentially zero for above-ground crops (NRC 1996).

Ways to Minimize Exposure

• Avoid vegetation that appears to be stressed (e.g., wilting, brown or burnt leaves, premature coloration, or leaf drop): Avoid harvesting fruits, vegetables, or any plant materials that will be used as food or for medicinal purposes if plants do not appear healthy. This could be an indicator of contamination.

• As a rule, the higher off the ground the fruit, vegetable, or portion of the plant to be harvested is, the less likely it will be impacted by contamination from the soil.

• Always wash all fruits and vegetables and any portions of the plant that will be ingested. This is by far the most efficient way of being exposed to contaminants that are in the soil or sediments, either by soil adhering root crops like tubers or from soil spray that results in contaminant deposition onto above ground portion of plants.

• Peeling away the skin or top surface layer of the fruit or vegetable

• Smoking or ingesting tobacco products produces the greatest potential for above- average exposure to cadmium. It has been estimated that tobacco smokers are exposed to 1.7 micrograms (µg) of cadmium per cigarette. The amount of cadmium absorbed from smoking one pack of cigarettes per day is about l-3 µg/day, roughly the same as from a typical diet (ATSDR 1999c).

20 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Considerations for sampling plants with highest potential for contamination

• Measure Soil pH― Determine the pH of the soil in popular harvest locations. This is a relatively easy and inexpensive test and can provide very useful information about the potential for vegetation in the area to accumulate metals.

• Sample the root and near surface portions of the plant since they would be likely to be most impacted by direct accumulation of metals from soil.

• Try to measure contamination in both washed and unwashed samples when possible. Contamination will often be deposited on the surface of the plants rather than taken up by the plant’s vascular system. In most cases, thoroughly washing or peeling off the outer layer of the sample will remove most of the contamination.

• The levels of mercury and other metals in the reeds of plants commonly used for basket weaving could represent a potential for human health risk. Consideration for analysis of the mercury level in these plants is recommended.

21 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

RESOURCE OF INTEREST: FISH AND WILDLIFE

General Information The Micmac Tribe utilizes a wide variety of fish and wildlife resources for food, clothing, and ceremonial activities. In a similar fashion to plants, animals will accumulate contaminants that are in soil, sediments, and water. However, unlike most plants chemical concentrations in species high on the food chain can be many times greater than their levels in the soil and water. Algae and plants, which form the base of the food chain, can take up small amounts of these contaminants directly from the water and sediment. Animals, especially herbivores, can subsequently ingest large quantities of these plant materials as well as contaminated soil and sediments in the process. Contaminant concentrations typically increase with each step of the food chain because they accumulate in tissues faster than they can be metabolized and removed from the body (Extoxnet 1993).

A review of the scientific literature indicates that the accumulation of contaminants in animals depends largely on the diet of the animal (i.e., carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore) and the type of contaminant the animal is exposed to (e.g., PCBs, pesticides, or metals). For example, deer, moose and caribou are primarily herbivores and are most likely to accumulate and store metals in their kidney, liver, and bones. Other organic compounds may also be stored in the organs and fat tissues of these animals. However, concentrations of PCBs and organic pesticides are not typically found at high concentrations in herbivores because they do not eat the animals that readily accumulate these compounds in their fatty tissues (e.g., fish, ducks, and seals) (NCP 2003).

Many contaminants (e.g., metals and chlorinated compounds) bind to proteins or lipids and accumulate over time in animals. Contaminants tend to be stored most readily, and in the highest concentrations, in fatty tissues or filter organs such as the liver or kidney. Most metals accumulate in kidneys and liver, whereas organic compounds tend to accumulate at the highest concentrations in fatty tissues. Lead is a very toxic heavy metal that accumulates most readily in bone, and to a lesser extent in the kidney, liver, and muscle tissue of animals (Burger et. al., 2002).

It is estimated that about 25 percent (approximately 1 pound per day) of the total caloric intake for a typical adult member of the Micmac Tribe may comprise wild game (Harper 2006). Although the specific use of different portions of game animals (e.g., liver, kidney, skin) has not been quantified, many native cultures consume portions of game animals as part of a traditional subsistence diet (Arnold et. al., 2005). Since these traditional foods are not a common part of the U.S. diet, this may present unique exposure scenarios. The information presented below can be used to guide individual or tribal decisions about what types of animal resources are likely to contain the lowest contaminant levels and are most suitable to harvest for foods or other culturally important activities. Information is also presented to assist the Tribe in making decisions about where to target and prioritize environmental sampling given the limited availability of resources.

22 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Factors that Influence the Accumulation of Contaminants As previously stated, contaminant levels in wildlife are largely related to the animals feeding habits. In general, animals at the bottom of the food chain (e.g., insects, rodents, and small fish) are less likely to accumulate contaminants at sufficient levels to cause harm to people than those at the top. The term trophic level is used to describe feeding position in a food chain such as primary producers, herbivore, primary carnivore, etc. Green plants form the first trophic level, the producers. Herbivores form the second trophic level, while carnivores form the third and even the fourth trophic levels. Herbivores (e.g., deer, moose, and rabbits) are less likely to accumulate harmful levels of chlorinated compounds and most metals then carnivores. This is especially true for those animals that do not typically ingest much soil in their diet (see below). Other important factors that influence the potential for animals to accumulate contaminants and contribute to human exposures include:

Size and age of animal — Larger and older animals usually contain the highest contaminant concentrations. This is especially true with respect to chlorinated compounds that accumulate over time in fatty tissues. However, metals will also accumulate in the liver and kidneys and these concentrations are often correlated with the age of the animal as well

Availability — Contaminants vary in their availability to be absorbed and distributed in animal tissues. Some contaminants bind to soil or sediments and are not readily available to be taken up by fish and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.

Soil ingestion — soil ingested both intentionally and incidentally by many species of wildlife can be a significant exposure pathway for some contaminants (EPA 1993; Beyer et al. 1994). Grazing animals such as sheep, goats, and elk feed on grasses and are more likely to ingest soil and sediments that could potentially contain contaminants. Browsers, such as deer and moose often forage on shrubs, twigs, and other woody vegetation, typically ingesting less soil than grazers. Aquatic organisms, especially bottom feeders, may ingest large amounts of sediment resulting in higher contaminant body burdens (Beyer et al. 1994).

Home range — home range size can be used to determine the proportion of time that an individual animal is expected to come in contact with contaminants from a specific location. Home range refers to the geographic area encompassed by an animal's activities, except migration, over a specified period of time. Animals that roam large areas feeding from different locations are less likely to accumulate contaminants from a specific source area. Animals that have very small home ranges are more likely to have body burdens that reflect the contaminants found in their immediate surroundings (EPA 1993). Migratory species of birds and fish will exhibit varying patterns of contaminant uptake, but generally will have lower body burdens than animals that have smaller home ranges near sources of contamination.

Contaminant composition — Chlorinated compounds accumulate in organisms because of their attraction to lipids and the stability (i.e., biological inactivity) of the parent chemical or metabolites. When chlorinated compounds accumulate in fatty

23 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

tissue they typically remain there for a long time and are not rapidly metabolized. Predicting the rates of accumulation of compounds such as PCBs, dioxins and furans in animals is complicated because they comprise a large number of congeners. The term congener refers to one of many variants or configurations of a common chemical structure. The more highly chlorinated congeners of PCBs, dioxins, and furans are not easily metabolized by most animals and remain in the body for longer periods of time. The congeners that contain less chlorine are more readily metabolized and are removed from the body. The capability to metabolize certain chlorinated compounds also varies, to some extent, by animal species (Norstrom 1992).

The accumulation of metals in animals will vary according to the specific form of an element (i.e., speciation) as well as the metabolic rate of the organism. Different forms of an element may be mobilized differently in the environment and may exhibit different rates of bioavailability (NCP 2003). Studies indicate that most aquatic and terrestrial species accumulate free metal ions (metal hydroxides) from solution (i.e., water) more efficiently than from direct particulate matter ingestion that may occur from exposure to soil or sediments.

Site Specific Information Table 6 provides common fish and wildlife resources harvested by the Micmac Tribe near LAFB. This list was compiled on the basis of discussions with representatives of the Micmac Tribe. Although it represents the most common fish and wildlife species utilized by the tribe, it is not exhaustive and other species may be considered to be important to the tribe as new information about fish and wildlife resources and common harvesting practices are obtained.

Table 6. Common Indigenous Fish and Wildlife Harvested by the Micmac Tribe Fish and Wetland Species Birds and Water Fowl Land Species Brook Trout Grouse Moose Cat Fish Woodcock Bear Crayfish Mallard and Black Ducks Fisher White Suckers Geese Rabbit Turtles Raccoon and Red Squirrel Mink and Otter Dear and Snowshoe Hare Beaver and Muskrat Porcupine Note: Information for this table was provided by Fred Cory (Environmental Director for the Micmac Tribe) and Barbara Harper (Draft Provisional Exposure Factors for LAFB). The wildlife species listed in this table represent some of the more important species utilized by the Tribe and are found near LAFB. This is not meant to represent the only fish and wildlife species that are utilized by the Micmac Tribe, only the most common ones.

A fish advisory was issued by the Maine Department of Human Services in May 1996 warning against the consumption of fish from certain water bodies within and around the former LAFB. The areas covered by the advisory include Chapman Pit, Green Pond, Greenlaw Brook, and the Little Madawaska River and its tributaries. As part of the long-term monitoring (LTM) program initiated by the Air Force in 2001, fish tissue samples were collected during 2001 and again in 2003 from these impacted surface water bodies and analyzed for specific COCs identified at LAFB (MWH Americas 2005; Woodlot Alternatives, Inc 2002, 2004). Table 7 presents the results of these analyses. No other biological resources of interest were sampled as part of the LTM program.

24 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 7. Contaminants Detected in Fish Samples Collected at LAFB Fish Species: Contaminant Historical Recent Most Recent Screening Brook Trout Maximum Sampling Max. Sampling Max. Value Conc. (2001) (2003) (ppb)1 (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) EBGB Heptachlor epoxide NA 17J 4.4 0.35 (LT-10) 4,4’-DDE 44 180J 56 93 4,4’-DDD 76 33J 27 13 4,4’-DDT 140 86J 36 93 Alpha (cis) chlordane 42 7.2J 9.2 9 PCB 1260 2,100 2,500J 560 1.6 WBGB/ Heptachlor epoxide NA ND 4.7 0.35 Chapman Pit 4,4’-DDE 44 330J 100 93 (LT-05) 4,4’-DDD 76 120 37 13 4,4’-DDT 140 ND 22 93 Alpha (cis) chlordane 42 ND 2.4 9 PCB 1260 2,100 1,200 490 1.6 Little Madawaska Heptachlor epoxide NA ND ND 0.35 River 4,4’-DDE 44 ND 150 93 (LT-02) 4,4’-DDD 76 ND 12 13 4,4’-DDT 140 ND 49 93 Alpha (cis) chlordane 42 ND 1.3 9 PCB 1260 2,100 ND 21J 1.6 Willard Brook Heptachlor epoxide NA ND ND 0.35 (Reference) 4,4’-DDE 44 110J 32J 93 (LT-12) 4,4’-DDD 76 12J 3.4 13 4,4’-DDT 140 ND 5.6 93 Alpha (cis) chlordane 42 ND ND 9 PCB 1260 2,100 77 18J 1.6 Caribou Stream Heptachlor epoxide NA NA NA 0.35 (Reference) 4,4”-DDE 44 ND 44 93 (CS-01) 4,4”-DDD 76 ND 4 13 4,4”-DDT 140 ND 4.9 93 Alpha (cis) chlordane NA NA NA 9 PCB 1260 2,100 ND 1.9 1.6 Prestile Brook Heptachlor epoxide NA NA NA 0.35 (Reference) 4,4”-DDE 44 ND 180 93 (PB-01) 4,4”-DDD 76 ND 13 13 4,4”-DDT 140 ND 43 93 Alpha (cis) chlordane NA NA NA 9 PCB 1260 2,100 ND 3 1.6 Source: Woodlot Alternatives, Inc 2002; 2004

1 EPA Region III Risk-based Concentration Table (Fish tissue)

EBGB = East Branch of Greenlaw Brook WBGB = West Branch of Greenlaw Brook ND = Not detected; NA = Not available

Note: 2003 sampling effort analyzed fillets whereas earlier analyses only referred to samples as “fish tissue” and did not specify fillet or whole body.

25 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Potential for Contaminant Accumulation

Metals

Metals contamination in soil, water, and sediments is a concern since they persist in the environment for a long period of time and can be taken up by plants and animals. Metals contained in air particulates can also travel large distances before settling onto surface soil, vegetation, or in water. Consequently, even remote areas that are a distance from industrial sources can contain metals that exceed natural background levels. Plants grown on soils containing elevated levels of metals can be consumed by animals. Even low levels of certain metals in plants can eventually become harmful to animals and humans as they concentrate in some organs of animals that are at the top of the food chain. The highest concentrations of metals are typically found in organs such as the liver and kidney and sometimes the bones of animals.

The following metals were identified as COCs during environmental sampling at LAFB. The metals are listed in order of highest potential to accumulate in animals and potentially cause health effects in humans.

Cadmium — Cadmium can be found in almost all soils, surface waters and plants, and it is readily distributed by industrial activities such as mining. As a result, cadmium is a potential health threat to wildlife species (Larison et. al., 2000). Cadmium accumulates with increasing age of the animal and most studies find the highest levels of cadmium in the kidneys and then the liver. Although the available data on the levels of cadmium contamination in wildlife are not extensive, cadmium concentrations in some common wildlife species have been reported in the scientific literature.

In places where traditional foods continue to comprise all or a significant portion of the total human diet, cadmium analysis has been conducted in deer, caribou, and moose. Elevated cadmium levels in deer and moose livers have prompted several states to issue consumption advisories. Cadmium concentrations have been reported to range from 0.002 to 23 ppm (dry weight) for deer livers from Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, and Maine, with mean concentrations of 1.7, 4, 0.4, and 1.3 ppm, respectively (Musante et al. 1993). The State of Maine has a deer and moose liver and kidney consumption advisory due to elevated concentrations of cadmium detected in these organ meats.

Cadmium levels in other wildlife species have also been reported in the literature. Table 8a presents cadmium concentrations that have been detected in several fish and wildlife species. Levels of cadmium are generally not elevated in the muscle and fatty tissues of fish. For example, concentrations of cadmium in brook trout samples collected from the Mere Brook in Brunswick Maine were well below levels of health concern. The levels of cadmium in the liver of carp contained the highest concentration in the fish sampled identified in the literature.

26 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 8a. Cadmium concentrations detected in different wildlife species Species Tissue Range Average Location Source ppm* ppm* Beaver Kidney NA 1.4 Canada (Ontario) Wren 1984 Liver NA 0.2 Muscle NA ND Bird Species Japan1 Mochizuki et al. 2002 Duck (Mallards) Kidney 4.7—38.1 15.4 Seabirds Kidney ND—67.4 12.9 Wild Birds Kidney 0.45—174.4 42 Japan2 Caribou Kidney 9.7—33.93 NA Canada Elkin and Bethke 1995 Liver 2.0—4.43 NA (Northwest Territory) Deer Liver 0.002—23 1.3 CT, Il, ME, and NJ, Musante et al. 1993 Kidney 0.03—9.7w 2.2w Poland Falandysz et al. 2005 Liver ND—0.87w 0.2w Muscle ND—0.85w 0.1w Fish Species Brook Trout Whole 0.02—0.05 0.03 w Maine (Mere Brook) USFWS 1997 Carp Liver 4.9—26.34 NA OK, MO Brumbough et al. 2005 Carcass 0.1—0.74 NA Catfish Carcass < 0.03–0.14 NA LM Bass Carcass <0.034 NA Crayfish Whole NA 3.4 WA (Seattle) Stinson & Eaton 1983 Mink Kidney NA 0.2w Canada (Yukon) Gamberg et al. 2005a Kidney NA 3.6 Canada (Kootenay River) Harding et al. 1998 Kidney 0.2—0.9w NA Canada (Ontario) Wren et al. 1988 Liver 0.1—0.2w NA Moose Kidney NA 28.1w Canada (Yukon) Gamberg et al. 2005b Liver NA 4.9w Muscle NA 0.03w Kidney 1.7—22.8w NA Alaska5 Arnold et al. 2005 Liver 0.5—2.5w NA Muskrat Kidney ND–1.1 0.3w Idaho Blus et al. 1987 Otter Kidney NA 0.1 Canada (Ontario) Wren 1984 Liver NA ND Muscle NA ND Liver NA 0.68 Canada (Kootenay River) Harding et al.1998 Kidney 0.4—1.5w NA Canada (Ontario) Wren et al. 1988 Liver 0.1—0.2w NA Raccoon Kidney NA 1.2 Canada (Ontario) Wren 1984 Liver NA 0.2 Muscle NA ND Kidney NA 2.2w SC (Savanna River) Burger et al. 2002 Liver NA 0.5w On Site Kidney NA 2.2w SC (Savanna River) Liver NA 0.5w Off Site *Concentrations are reported as dry weight unless a W follows the value, in which case the concentrations are reported as wet weight 1 Samples collected from non-contaminated areas 2 Samples collected from contaminated areas 3 Values represent the range of average (i.e., mean) concentrations detected in caribou from 5 sampling locations (kidney) and 4 sampling locations (liver) in the Northwest Territories of Canada 4 Values represent the range of average (i.e., mean) concentrations from 10 different sampling locations 5 Values represent the range of the average (i.e. mean) concentration detected in moose from 4 sampling locations in Alaska

LM Bass = Large mouth bass; NA = Not applicable; ND = Not detected Note: Concentrations reported in this table may differ slightly with the original citation because of rounding to nearest significant figure.

27 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Mercury — Methyl mercury accumulates in living organisms because it has a strong attraction for certain protein structures, referred to as sulfhydryl groups, in the body. The target site for mercury is usually muscle tissue, although high concentrations of inorganic mercury may also accumulate in the kidney. As organisms at the bottom of the food chain are eaten by higher-order organisms, the mercury concentration is increased along the food chain, often many times higher than the levels found in the environment (e.g., sediments, water, or air) (Davis 2003). The BCF of methylmercury in fish has been reported to be as high as three million (ATSDR 1999b).

The potential for bioaccumulation in terrestrial food chains has been observed in a variety of plants and animals. However, people are primarily exposed to methyl mercury (i.e., organic mercury), which is readily accumulated by organisms, through consuming large fish or marine mammals. Most terrestrial animals do not appear to be an important dietary source of methyl mercury for people (Renzoni et al. 1998). However, wild game, such as wild birds and mammals (e.g., bear) that eat large amounts of contaminated fish may accumulate mercury at higher levels than most other terrestrial animals. Fish appear to accumulate methyl mercury from both food sources and water. However, some studies have demonstrated that food is the predominant source of mercury uptake in fish (ATSDR 1999b).

Table 8b presents mercury concentrations that have been detected in several wildlife species. Among a variety of fish species sampled, large mouth bass contained the highest levels of mercury, both in samples collected in the northeast and across the U.S. Brook trout, which are commonly consumed by the Micmacs, and brown bullhead contained the lowest levels of mercury in fish sampled across the Northeast (NESCAUM 1998). Raccoons (kidney and liver), mink, and otter also contained somewhat elevated levels of mercury.

Lead — Lead is a heavy metal which can accumulate in the food chain. The availability of lead to organisms in the environment is limited by its adherence to soil and sediment. Some soil lead is taken up by plants and passed to animals, but a major fraction is accumulated at the surface of root cells. In most terrestrial animals most of the accumulated lead is stored in bone. It is also stored to a much lesser extent in the liver and kidney of animals. Fish accumulate lead mostly in the gill, liver, kidney, and bone (WHO-IPCS 1989). Higher blood lead levels are usually indicative of recent lead exposures. It is rare for lead to accumulate significantly in muscle or adipose tissue, and therefore, meat from game animals contributes very little to an individual’s lifetime lead body burden.

Most studies that have measured levels of lead in the bone and other organs of different wildlife species find similar relationships regarding the target area for greatest lead accumulation. Table 8c presents lead concentrations that have been detected in several wildlife species. Some of the highest lead concentrations were detected in otters (kidney, liver, and bones) (Anderson-Bledsoe 1983) and carp (liver and carcass) (Brumbough et al. 2005). However, the results were reported as dry weight values and other studies that report results as wet weight values are not directly comparable. In general, dry weight values are higher than wet weight values, but the percentage difference will vary based on the water content of the sample. A review of the literature indicates that deer, moose, and caribou

28 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

generally have low concentrations of lead in edible tissues (Falandysz et al. 2005; Gamberg et al. 2005b; Elkin and Bethke 1995).

Table 8b. Mercury concentrations detected in different wildlife species Species Tissue Range Average Location Source (ppm)* (ppm)* Beaver Kidney NA 0.03 Canada (Ontario) Wren 1984 Liver NA 0.03 Muscle NA 0.03 Caribou Kidney 0.5—2.91 NA Canada Elkin and Bethke 1995 Liver 0.2—0.91 NA (Northwest Territory) Fish Species LM Bass NS 0—8.9 0.5 Northeast, U.S NESCAUM 1998 Yel. Perch NS 0—3.2 0.4 (Includes ME, VT, NH, Lake Trout NS 0—2.7 0.3 MA, RI, CT, NY, and NJ)2 Brook Trout NS 0—0.1 0.3 Crayfish Whole 0.03—0.23 NA WA (Seattle) Stinson and Eaton 1983 Mink Liver 0.1—4.1 NA Idaho and WA Blus et al. 1987 Kidney NA 0.7 Canada (Yukon) Gamberg et al. 2005a Liver NA 0.9 Brain NA 0.2 Kidney NA 3.44 Canada (Kootenay River) Harding et al.1998 Brain 0.1—2.6 0.4 Maine Yates et al. 2005 Liver 0.2—8.0 1.2 Fur 1.8—68.5 17.5 Moose Kidney NA 0.02 Canada (Yukon) Gamberg et al. 2005b Muskrat Liver ND—0.22 NA Idaho and WA Blus et al. 1987 Otter Kidney NA 1.4 Canada (Ontario) Wren 1984 Liver NA 3.0 Muscle NA 0.9 Brain 0.2—3.3 0.5 Maine Yates et al. 2004 Liver 0.5—8.7 1.8 Fur 2.8—73.7 20.7 Raccoon Kidney NA 1.2 SC (Savanna River) Burger et al. 2002 Liver NA 1.5. On Site Kidney NA 0.5 SC (Savanna River) Liver NA 0.7 Off Site Kidney NA 4.5 Canada (Ontario) Wren 1984 Liver NA 1.1 Muscle NA 0.3 *Unless otherwise noted all concentrations are reported as wet weight

1 Values represent the range of the average (i.e., mean) concentration detected in caribou from 5 sampling locations (kidney) and 4 sampling locations (liver) in the Northwest Territories of Canada 2 Some of the data were obtained using different methodologies, quality assurance and quality control methods, and laboratory analyses. In some cases, whole fish were analyzed and, in other cases, only fillets or muscle tissue were analyzed. 3Values represent dry weight concentrations 4 Values are reported as dry weight

NA = Not applicable; ND = Not detected; NS = Not specified; LM Bass = Large mouth Bass; Yel Perch = Yellow Perch

Note: Concentrations reported in this table may differ slightly with the original citation because of rounding to nearest significant figure.

29 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 8c. Lead concentrations detected in different wildlife species Species Tissue Range Average Location Source (ppm)* (ppm)* Caribou Kidney 0.1—0.51 NA Canada Elkin and Bethke 1995 Liver 0.3—3.41 NA (Northwest Territory) Deer Kidney 0.08—1.3 0.3 Poland Falandysz et al. 2005 Liver 0.05—1.0 0.3 Muscle 0.01—1.5 0.2 Fish Species Carp Liver 0.2—3.32 NA OK, MO Brumbough et al. 2005 Carcass 0.8—12.82 NA Crayfish Muscle 0.05—0.33 NA Northern Louisiana Madigosky et al. 1991 Mink Liver 0.1—0.4 NA Canada (Ontario) Wren et al. 1988 Bone 1.0—3.0 NA Liver 0.1—4.14 NA Idaho and WA Blus et al. 1987 Kidney NA 1.15 Canada (BC) Harding et al. 1998 NA 0.66 Canada (BC) Moose Kidney NA 0.09 Canada (Yukon) Gamberg et al. 2005b Liver NA 0.1 Muscle NA 0.03 Muskrat Liver 0.27—0.96 0.5 Idaho and WA Blus et al. 1987 Otter Liver 0.1—0.5 NA Canada (Ontario) Wren et al. 1988 Bone 0.7—3.9 NA Liver7 0.4—55.9 1.4 Virginia Anderson-Bledsoe Kidney7 0.4—6.0 0.8 1983 Bone7 0.4—35.2 1.4 Kidney NA 0.3 SC (Savanna River) Burger et al. 2002 Liver NA 0.3 On Site Kidney NA 0.4 SC (Savanna River) Liver NA 0.5 Off Site Raccoon Kidney NA 0.3 SC (Savanna River) Burger et al. 2002 Liver NA 0.3. On Site Kidney NA 0.4 SC (Savanna River) Liver NA 0.5 Off Site *Unless otherwise noted all concentrations are reported as wet weight

1 The highest average dry weight concentration detected in caribou from 5 sampling locations (kidney) and 4 sampling locations (liver) in the Northwest Territories of Canada 2 Values represent the range of dry weight average (i.e., mean) concentrations reported from 10 different sampling locations 3 Values represent the range of dry weight average (i.e., mean) concentrations reported from 10 different sampling locations 4 Values represent the range of average (i.e., mean) concentrations from 3 sampling locations 5 Samples were collected on a dry weight basis from the Kootenay River (a tributary of the Columbia River) 6 Samples were collected on a dry weight basis from the Fraser River 7 Results are reported as dry weight BC = British Columbia NA = Not applicable

Note: Concentrations reported in this table may differ slightly with the original citation because of rounding to nearest significant figure.

30 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

A recent study reported lead (and other metals) concentrations in stream sediments collected from different game management zones in the Yukon Territory of Canada where moose samples were obtained. The average lead concentration in stream sediment reported in this study was 56.2 ppm. For purposes of comparison, lead concentrations were reported to be as high as 15.1 ppm in sediment samples collected in 2001 from the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook at LAFB. Lead and cadmium showed statistically significant relationships between levels detected in the moose kidney and sediment concentrations from different home ranges. Lead levels in animals were not at levels known to be harmful. The authors hypothesized that the most likely mode of transfer of these elements from sediment to moose is through vegetation, which is consumed by the animals (Gamberg et al. 2005b).

Barium — Although the data are limited, barium does not appear to accumulate at harmful levels in fish and aquatic wildlife species. No adverse effects have been reported in ecological assessments of terrestrial wildlife (WHO 2001).

Silver — Most people are exposed to very low levels of silver mainly in food and drinking water, and less in air. The silver in these sources is at least partially due to naturally occurring silver in water and soil. In its pure metal form or in ores, silver does not dissolve and is not likely to accumulate extensively in fish and wildlife. Consumption of fish and wildlife does not contribute significantly to an individual’s lifetime body burden (ATSDR 1990).

A review of the scientific literature did not identify many studies that measured levels of silver in fish and wildlife. One of the few studies that measured silver in terrestrial wildlife found that levels of silver were below detection limits in most or all liver samples collected from raccoons from the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina (Burger et al. 2002). Silver was also not detected in kidney samples collected from caribou across the Yukon Territory in Canada (Gamberg 2002).

Zinc — Zinc is an essential element for animals, including humans. At high enough levels, zinc can result in several toxic effects to a wide variety of animal life. Zinc can interact with numerous chemicals. The pattern of accumulation, metabolism, and toxicity from these interactions sometimes differs greatly from those produced by zinc alone. It is, however, rare for zinc to accumulate in terrestrial animals, either in bone, muscle tissue, or fat, at levels that would cause adverse health effects (Eisler 1993).

Background concentrations of zinc seldom exceed 40 ppb in water and 200 ppm in soils and sediment. Zinc concentrations in field collections of plants and animals are extremely variable and difficult to interpret. The maximum historical concentration of zinc in sediments collected from the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook at LAFB was 952 ppm. More recent sampling at the West Branch of Greenlaw Brook found levels of zinc at much lower concentrations (96 ppm) in sediments, similar to typical background levels (Woodlot Alternatives, Inc 2002).

Elevated concentrations have been found in some species of oysters, scallops, red and brown algae, and terrestrial arthropods. However concentrations rarely exceed 700 ppm in fish tissue and 200 ppm in birds, and terrestrial animals (Eisler 1993). Zinc has been measured in

31 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

fish and wildlife in some studies identified in the scientific literature search. Zinc in the kidney of caribou from the Yukon Territory in Canada ranged from 75.5―181 ppm with an average concentration of 155 ppm. These concentrations are similar to those found in caribou from the Northwest Territory of Canada (97―123.5 ppm dry weight). According to the authors, concentrations of zinc found in caribou from the Yukon Territory should be considered normal background levels (Gamberg 2002).

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

POPs can be released into marine and freshwater ecosystems through atmospheric deposition, runoff, and other means. POPs contaminate local areas close to where they are released into the environment from industry and agriculture. POPs also contaminate regions remote from their source because they can be transported for thousands of miles through the atmosphere. These compounds bond strongly to particulate matter in aquatic sediments. When bound to these sediments these compounds have a minimal impact on marine and terrestrial wildlife. If disturbed, however, they can be reintroduced into the environment and food chain, potentially becoming a source of local, regional, or global, contamination. The primary target sites for POPs in animals are fat and tissues, organs, or body fluids that contain a high proportion of fat (e.g., skin, liver, and breast milk). Organic contaminants such as chlordane, DDT and its breakdown products (DDE and DDD), and PCBs, are typically not of health concern in large terrestrial herbivores such as deer, caribou, and moose (Elkin and Bethke 1995; NCP 2003).

PCBs — PCBs have been routinely monitored in fish and numerous wildlife species since their use was discontinued in the late 1970s. Most studies that have measured levels of PCBs in fish over time have shown a decrease in the average total PCB concentrations since the mid1970s. For example, the average concentrations of PCBs in lake trout from Lake Huron declined from 8.1 ppm in 1976 to 0.5 ppm in 1994. Among trout from Lake Ontario, PCB concentrations have decreased by as much as 80 percent between 1977 (9.1 ppm) and 1993 (1.7 ppm) (ATSDR 2000).

Table 8d presents PCB concentrations detected in different fish and wildlife species across the U.S and some parts of Canada. Fish that inhabit remote areas of the world often contain measurable levels of PCBs. From 1993 to 1994, PCB residues were evaluated in lake trout from the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. Analysis of fish muscle revealed that the concentration of total PCBs ranged from 0.02 to 0.43 ppm (20 to 430 ppb) wet weight for lake trout (ATSDR 2000). These levels are considerably lower than those recently measured (2001 and 2003) in brook trout collected from the east and west branches of the Greenlaw Brook at LAFB, which ranged from 490 to 2,500 ppb (See Table 7).

Waterfowl may be an important source of PCB for people who consume this resource, especially for native populations that rely on traditional diets. Tissues of fish- and shellfish- eating waterfowl (i.e., goldeneye and mergansers) typically contain higher PCB concentrations than tissues of dabbling ducks (i.e., black ducks and mallards). Grazers (e.g., Canadian Geese) usually contain the lowest concentrations of PCBs. Their diet readily consists of aquatic vegetation, upland grass, and grain (ATSDR 2000).

32 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

PCB concentrations in the tissues of edible turtles have been measured near contaminated sites. Mean concentrations (wet weight) of PCBs measured in the muscle tissue of snapping turtles from 16 sites in southern Ontario, Canada ranged from less than 0.2 to 0.7 ppm. PCBs were measured in fat, liver, and muscle tissue from snapping turtles collected near Akwesasne, along the U.S. Canadian border, where turtles are a source of food for a Native American community of nearly 10,000 people. Concentrations of total PCBs (wet weight) ranged from 36.1 to 1,347 ppm in fat, 2.9–94.8 ppm in liver tissue, and not detected to 3 ppm in muscle tissue of snapping turtles (ATSDR 2000).

Frogs may also accumulate PCBs in their body, although usually to a lesser extent than turtles. During a 1993-1994 sampling effort, PCB levels in northern leopard frog tissues from the Fox River and other nearby locations around Greenbay, Wisconsin ranged from 0.002 to 0.2 ppm wet weight (ATSDR 2000). Mean residues of Aroclors 1254 and 1260 in tissues of frogs, collected along the Canadian shores of Lakes Erie and Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River, ranged from 0.3 to 1.7 ppm lipid weight in green frogs and 0.3–1.6 ppm lipid for leopard frogs. Based on frog tissue content and sediment PCB content, biota-sediment accumulation factors of 33.3–1.1 and 23–0.42 were calculated for leopard frogs and green frogs, respectively (Gillan et al. 1998).

PCB concentrations were analyzed in fat, liver, and muscle tissue of red and grey squirrels, beaver, muskrat, snowshoe hares, cottontail rabbits, and white-tailed deer. PCBs were typically found only in fatty tissues and occasionally in liver tissues, but were not detected in muscle tissue. Only two liver-tissue samples from muskrats contained detectable concentrations of PCBs (refer to Table 8d) (ATSDR 2000).

DDT/DDE/DDD — Even though DDT has not been used in this country since 1972, soil may still contain some DDT that may be taken up by plants and ingested by wildlife. DDT from contaminated water and sediment may continue to be taken up by fish for many years. Some aquatic organisms bioaccumulate DDT and its metabolites at concentrations from 1,000 to 1,000,000 times that measured in surrounding soil, water, and sediments (EPA 1989, 2002).

DDT levels have noticeably decreased in fish, shellfish, and aquatic mammals since its use was discontinued in the early 1970s (ATSDR 2002). Levels of DDT in fish were determined at 112 locations across the United States by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (NCBP)1 in 1976 and 1984. The mean concentrations of total DDT decreased from 370 ppb in 1976 to 260 ppb in 1984. Individually, DDT, DDE, DDD decreased from 50, 260, 80 ppb, respectively, in 1976 to 30, 190, 60 ppb, respectively, in 1984 (Schmitt et al. 1990).

DDE concentrations in brook trout from four remote lakes in Maine ranged from 11 to 34 ppb (Schmitt et al. 1990). DDE ranged from 0.2 to 382 ppb in whole fish collected from a sample of lakes in Maine (DiFranco et al. 1995). These levels are similar to those recently

1 The NCBP tracks temporal and geographic trends in contaminant concentrations in composite samples of whole fish collected from 112 sites throughout the United States.

33 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

measured (2001 and 2003) in brook trout collected from the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook and West Branch of Greenlaw Brook at LAFB, which ranged from 56 to 330 ppb (See Table 7).

In 1998 and 2001, beaver and muskrat tissue samples were collected from the Mackenzie River watershed of the Northwest Territory in Canada. Overall, DDT levels were low and below available guideline levels (Gamberg et al. 2005c). As noted previously, the highest concentrations of DDT and its breakdown products are typically found in fish and marine mammals. There were few recent studies identified that measured levels of most DDT in terrestrial wildlife (e.g., bear, deer, or moose).

Chlordane —Chlordane bioaccumulates in aquatic organisms and levels can become quite elevated, especially in larger predator fish. BCFs have been reported to be as high as 18,500 in rainbow trout (ATSDR 1994). Chlordane may also accumulate in marine mammals and, to a lesser extent, in terrestrial wildlife. The wildlife species with the greatest potential to accumulate chlordane include water fowl (e.g. ducks and geese), certain species of turtles, otters, seals, and minks. Chlordane monitoring data are not widely available for most of these species. Chlordane was measured in the fat tissue of caribou from the Northwest Territory of Canada. The highest chlordane concentration measured in caribou was 5 ppb. The highest levels in animals are typically found in the fat and it is likely that muscle tissue concentrations were very low or below the method detection limits.

In an EPA nationwide study of chemical residues in fish (EPA 1992), the average total chlordane tissue (fillet) concentration in brown trout was 7.3 ppb. In the Surface Water Ambient Toxic Monitoring Program of Maine, three brook trout fillet samples contained a mean chlordane concentrations of 1.5 ppb (Sowles et al. 1996). The mean total chlordane concentrations in brook trout collected from the Mere Brook, adjacent to landfills associated with Naval Air Station Brunswick, were 193 ppb for adults and 32 ppb for juveniles (USFWS 1997). Chlordane (cis) was measured in recent samples (2001 and 2003) of brook trout collected from the East Branch of Greenlaw Brook and West Branch of Greenlaw Brook. Concentrations measured in fish tissue samples ranged from ND to 9.2 ppb (Woodlot Alternatives, Inc 2002; 2004).

Other Contaminants of Concern at LAFB

PAHs —Although PAHs are accumulated in terrestrial and aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrates, many animals are able to metabolize and eliminate these compounds. The ability of fish to metabolize PAHs may explain why these compounds are not detected or found only at very low levels in fish from environments where PAH contamination is known to exist. BCFs, for fish and crustaceans are frequently reported to range between 10 and10,000. Fish and other aquatic wildlife do not appear to significantly bioaccumulate PAHs and, unlike POPs, the concentrations of these compounds typically are lower in wildlife species at the top of the food chain compared to those at the bottom. In some areas of the United States, however, fish consumption advisories have been issued based on elevated concentrations of PAHs found in locally caught fish or shellfish (ATSDR 1995).

34 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Few studies have focused on measuring PAHs in fish and wildlife. However, some additional perspective can be provided from the findings reported from environmental investigations of Prince Williams Sound in Alaska following the Exxon Valdez accident, which spilled more than 10 million gallons of crude oil into the sound. PAHs in various fish and shellfish species from Prince William Sound were not detected in 18 percent (72/402) of the samples collected; trace levels were found in 78 percent (312/402) of the samples; and individual PAH concentrations ranging from 5 to 12 ppb (wet or dry weight not specified) were found in 4 percent (18/402) of the samples. There was no apparent difference between PAH concentrations in salmon collected from impacted areas and those collected from reference locations. In samples collected in 1990, PAHs were detected in all samples (n=41) and 13 percent (6 samples) had individual PAH concentrations that exceeded 5 ppb (ATSDR 1995).

Wildlife that forage in areas that have high PAH levels in soils and sediments are likely to have the highest tissue concentrations, especially if the animals ingest large quantities of soil during feeding. PAH levels in fish and wildlife are not widely reported in the scientific literature.

Table 8d. PCB concentrations detected in different fish and wildlife species Species Tissue Range Average Location Source (ppb) (ppb) Caribou Fat 6.2—31.71 NA Canada Elkin and Bethke 1995 (Northwest Territory)2 Duck Unspecified NA 80 New York State Foley 1992 (Mallard) Unspecified ND—21 NA Wisconsin Botero et al. 1996 Duck (Black) Unspecified NA 70 New York State Foley 1992 Fish Species Brook Trout Unspecified 4.9—8.1 NA CA (Kaweah River) Datta et al. 1998 SM Bass Unspecified NA 115 St Lawrence Seaway Chan et al. 1999 Mink Liver 154—2193 NA Georgia, SC, NC Osowski et al. 1995 Liver 7—73 NA Canada (NW Territory) Poole et al. 1998 Muskrat Liver ND—700 NA NY (Akwesasne Tribe) Skinner 1992 Muscle ND ND Whole ND—800 Sea Otter Unspecified 8—31 NA AK, CA Bacon et al. 1999 Turtles Fat 36—1,3474 NA NY (Akwesasne Tribe) Skinner 1992 (Snapping) Liver 2.9—94.84 Muscle ND—34 Muscle 200—6555 NA Canada (Ontario) Hebert et al. 1993 Values are reported as wet weight concentrations unless otherwise noted

1 PCB equals the sum of 43 individual congeners 2 Values represent the range of the average (i.e., mean) concentration detected in caribou from 5 sampling locations in the Northwest Territories of Canada 3 Values represent the range of the average (i.e., mean) concentration detected in mink across the three sampling locations (i.e., Georgia, SC, and NC) 4 Concentrations in bold type are reported as parts per million (ppm) 5 Values represent the mean (i.e., average) concentrations (wet weight) of PCBs from 16 sites in southern Ontario

NA = Not available; SM Bass = Small Mouth Bass ND = Not detected Note: Concentrations reported in this table may differ slightly with the original citation because of rounding to nearest significant figure.

35 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 8e. Other POPs concentrations detected in different fish and wildlife species Species Contaminant Range Average Location Source (ppb) (ppb) Caribou Chlordane1 0.8—5.0 NA Canada Elkin and Bethke 1995 DDT2 0.5—2.6 NA (Northwest Territory)3 Ducks Chlordane NA 190 MD (Chesapeake Bay) White et al. 1979 Fish Species Brook Trout Chlordane4 100—353 200 Maine (Mere Brook, USFWS 1997 Adult5 DDE 60—130 92 Brunswick). Adjacent to DDD 43—120 77 three former landfills at DDT 120—290 177 the U.S. Naval Air Total DDT 223—540 346 Station in Brunswick, Juvenile5 Chlordane4 30—34 32 Maine (NASB).6 DDE 88—96 91 DDD 39—46 41 DDT 57—78 66 Total DDT 184—220 198 Mink DDT2 NA 9.5 Canada Poole et al. 1998 (Northwest Territory) Turtles Chlordane ND—9,330 3,900 NJ and MD Albers et al. 1986

1 Chlordane equals the sum of oxy-, cis-, and trans-chlordane, cis-and trans-nonachlor, and heptachlor epoxide 2 DDT equals the sum of p,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDE, and p,p’-DDD 3 Values represent the range of the average (i.e., mean) concentration detected in caribou from 5 sampling locations in the Northwest Territories of Canada 4 Chlordane equals the sum of cis-, and trans-chlordane 5 Two size classes of brook trout were collected: adults (average length = 15 centimeters or 6 inches) and juveniles (average length = 7 centimeters or 2.75 inches) 6 POPs concentrations were considerably higher in fish collected adjacent to the former NASB landfills than in selected reference locations.

Note: Concentrations reported in this table may differ slightly with the original citation because of rounding to nearest significant figure.

36 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Ways to Minimize Exposure

• ATSDR recommends that people select younger, smaller fish; remove the skin and fatty tissue in the belly and along the sides; and avoid eating the liver and other internal organs of the fish.

• Certain methods of preparing fish and other game may help minimize an individual’s exposure to certain chemicals. Frying fish traps chemicals in the fat of the fish or the oil that is used. Baking or broiling the fish and throwing away the fatty juices and drippings can reduce exposure to PCBs and other compounds that accumulate in fat.

• With few exceptions, metals do not concentrate in the muscle tissues of animals at levels that would be considered harmful. Organs such as the kidney and liver, however, may concentrate metals and other contaminants and, if consumed in high enough frequency, could be harmful. There is no way of knowing for sure if game animals that are harvested for food are contaminated unless samples of organs from the animals are collected and analyzed. If there is any reason to suspect that harvested animals have been feeding in contaminated areas it is prudent to limit the consumption of organs such as the kidney and liver.

• As mentioned previously (ways to minimize exposure to contaminants in plants), smoking or ingesting tobacco products produces the greatest potential for above- average exposure to cadmium.

• The removal of fat and skin prior to cooking may substantially reduce exposure to contaminants for people who consume waterfowl. A study conducted with common goldeneye from the Niagara River demonstrated that much of the contaminant burden in these birds was associated with adipose tissue. This study resulted in further modifications of human health advisories for the consumption of waterfowl (NYDEC 2003).

37 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE

ATSDR considered what native plants and animal resources the Micmac Tribe uses for traditional practices and how such activities may translate into exposures. On the basis of a review of the scientific literature, the following observations about the potential for exposure to contaminants from certain common traditional practices or daily activities are provided below.

The highest potential of risk at sites contaminated with heavy metals (e.g., lead, arsenic) is from soil ingestion. Eliminating carryover soil from plant materials as well as from clothing and hands is an important step in preventing exposure to these contaminants. Raccoons may be good indicators of cadmium environmental contamination because they are omnivorous, depend upon both aquatic and terrestrial resources, are non-migratory, and they occur over a large area of North America, allowing for large-scale comparisons of contaminants (Burger et al. 2002). Cadmium was not included in recent sediment and surface water sampling efforts at LAFB. This heavy metal may accumulate in certain plants and may accumulate at levels of concern in the kidney and other organs of some animals.

Workers (e.g., basket weavers and/or plant harvesters) who spend most of the day in an enclosed environment may inhale substantial amounts of dust and small soil particulates bound to plant materials. If the plant materials, dust, and/or soil particulates contain high concentrations of contaminants workers may be exposed at levels that could be harmful.

Some medicinal plant materials are used by native populations, either daily or on a regular basis, to promote health. However, the potential for exposure to metals or other contaminants could present concerns similar to those connected with consuming plants for subsistence purposes. For example, members of the Micmac Tribe use poplar and willow trees as infusions (bark and roots), decoctions, and poultices; and are used for a wide variety of purposes, including as an analgesic, anti-diarrheal, eye medicine, headache reliever, and dermatological treatments (Fred Cory, Environmental Director, Micmac Tribe. Personal Communication. February 21, 2006).

If dyes or paints, especially cosmetics or face paints, are made from the roots of plants, this use of the plant may be a potential exposure scenario. This is not likely to contribute significantly to overall exposure. However, cumulative sources of exposure may be sufficient to pose a health concern.

Contaminants from plant materials (e.g., sage) used in sweat lodges, which typically contain red hot lava rocks to heat the room, may volatilize into the air (e.g., mercury, PCBs).

From an exposure standpoint, it is important to consider which parts of the plants are used. Root crops (e.g., potatoes) and low lying plants (e.g., strawberries) are more

38 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

likely to be harmful when grown in contaminated soils than are parts of the plants that are higher from the ground. In general, the use of fruits and berries that grow higher from the ground will not be a significant source of exposure to metals or other contaminants from the soil. In most cases these plant materials will not present an exposure pathway unless there is evidence of significant aerial deposition.

A review of the literature suggests that animal skins and furs may contain high levels of mercury. Other contaminants were not measured in these studies. If members of the Micmac Tribe are known to routinely trap and skin animals for their furs and coats this should be considered as a potential exposure pathway. This would most likely be a dermal exposure concern, which is probably not a significant pathway, but one that could contribute a small amount to overall cumulative exposures from different activities and traditional practices.

Fish are an important and healthy part of the traditional diet. Fish provide rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids which are associated with lower rates of heart disease. Fats in fish are generally unsaturated fats that are better for heart health than saturated fats found in many other foods.

Considerations for sampling fish and wildlife with highest potential to contribute to human exposures (See Table 9).

Table 9 provides a compilation of the plant and animal resources that are utilized by the Micmac Tribe and presents important information that can be used to evaluate the potential that each resource has for contributing to an individual’s cumulative exposure. The levels of concern for the consumer and for the harvester, hunter, or worker, represent qualitative evaluations that are based on a review of the literature, available site-specific data, and any anecdotal information regarding how members of the Micmac Tribe may utilize specific resources. The table is not meant to be used as a tool for developing quantitative risk assessments, but rather as a resource that will assist the tribe and other groups to help prioritize potential environmental concerns and more efficiently allocate resources.

39 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 9: Common Plant and Animal Resources near LAFB: Potential for Human Exposure to Contaminants Exposure Portion of the Exposure Concern Supporting Sampled at plant/animal Recommend Sampling (Yes/No) Name Concern Harvester, Evidence/Scientific LAFB3 frequently Consumer1 hunter, and/or Literature (Yes/No) used worker2 Plant Resources Blueberry Fruit/Berries Metals: Low Metals: Low Very little sampling data are No No-Sampling of these plant Gooseberry available in the scientific resources should not be a high Chokecherries POPs: Low Organics: Low literature for some of the priority since it is unlikely that the Raspberries specific berries that are upper portions of plants will used. However, in general, contain harmful contaminants. fruits and berries that grow high off the ground do not contain high levels of contaminants. Cattails Root Metals: Metals: Medium Cattails have the potential to No–Sediment Yes–Cattails can accumulate Medium bioaccumulate metals and samples have metals and collecting samples at Organics: Low some species are purposely been collected locations where contaminated POPs: Low used in the bioremediation at some sediments were found would help of polluted wetlands and the locations (e.g., confirm that biota is safe and that treatment of industrial EBGB and none of the cattail species are wastewater. Low soil pH will WBGB) hyper-accumulating metals. increase the potential for metals accumulation in the cattails. Fiddlehead Stem and Metals: Low Metals: A small number of studies No–Sediment No–Fiddleheads should not Ferns fronds Low/medium have collected and analyzed samples have receive high priority for sampling. POPs: Low fiddlehead ferns. been collected Fiddlehead ferns do not typically Organics: Low at some accumulate metals or POPs at locations (e.g., levels of health concern. If EBGB and resources are available, it may be WBGB) worthwhile to collect samples at locations with the highest lead and PCB sediment concentrations to confirm that these plants are not accumulating contaminants.

40 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

It may also be more cost-effective to sample soil before biota sampling is considered. If soil samples do not show elevated levels of contamination, it is unlikely that harvesting these plant resources will pose a health concern.

41 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Sampling of sweet grass should be collected from areas where metals were frequently detected in sediments. Sweet Flag Rhizomes Metals: Low Metals: Low Sufficient information was No No–Sampling of sweet flag Rhizome POPs: Low Organics: Low not identified in the scientific rhizome is not likely to be a literature to provide concern if other plant resources Leaves Metals: Low Metals: Low evidence that this resource are not accumulating POPs: Low Organics: Low may be a potential health contaminants. The highest priority concern or to rule it out as a would be the plants that are known Root Metals: Metals: Medium concern. to accumulate metals (i.e., poplar, Medium Organics: Low willow, and cattails). POPs: Low

42 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

43 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 9: Common Plant and Animal Resources near LAFB: Potential for Human Exposure to Contaminants Exposure Portion of the Exposure Concern Supporting Sampled at plant/animal Recommend Sampling (Yes/No) Name Concern Harvester, Evidence/Scientific LAFB3 frequently Consumer1 hunter, and/or Literature (Yes/No) used worker2 Wildlife Resources Bear Meat Metals: Low Sufficient information was No Sufficient information is not (including Low/medium not identified in the scientific available at this time to provide a organs) and literature to provide sampling recommendation. Skin POPs: evidence that this resource However, use of Black bear fat and Low/medium may be a potential health oils in lotions and medicines, if Fat, Oil for meat. concern or to rule it out as a consumed at high levels, could be Medium/High concern. of concern. Therefore, it may be for fat and oils prudent to sample bear fat if the resource is used extensively by the MicMac Tribe. Cray fish Meat Metals: Low Levels of metals in Cray fish No No–Cray fish are not likely Low/medium were generally low. consumed with high enough However, cadmium did frequencies to warrant sampling. POPs: accumulate in the Low/medium hepatopancreata and to a lesser extent in other tissues. Deer Meat and Metals: Medium In general, levels of No In general, deer do not accumulate organs Low/medium contaminants in deer meat contaminants at high enough have not been shown to be concentrations to prioritize for POPs: Very elevated. Organs have sampling. There is a consumption Low shown elevated levels, advisory for deer liver. If it is hence the statewide determined that people are consumption advisory for consuming deer liver, it should be liver. considered for sampling.

44 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 9: Common Plant and Animal Resources near LAFB: Potential for Human Exposure to Contaminants Exposure Portion of the Exposure Concern Supporting Sampled at plant/animal Recommend Sampling (Yes/No) Name Concern Harvester, Evidence/Scientific LAFB3 frequently Consumer1 hunter, and/or Literature (Yes/No) used worker2 Grouse Meat, Metals: Low Animals that forage on No No–Recommend sampling willows. including Medium/High willow growing in cadmium- If leaves contain high levels of organs and rich soils are most cadmium, may want to sample skin POPs: Medium susceptible. animals that eat willow leaves. Grouse may be a good candidate if Avoid consuming the liver or the willows are contaminated, kidneys of grouse or other since they feed on willow. animals. Fish Whole fish Medium/High Low/medium The Air Force has sampled Yes Yes–continued sampling of brook (Brook trout, brook trout as part of its Brook trout trout as well as other bottom cat fish, white long-term monitoring have been feeding species suckers) obligations. Levels of PCBs sampled from continue to be elevated in several the recent fish sampling locations at efforts. LAFB (see Table 7) The investigation conducted by the USFWS at Mere Brook in Brunswick Maine, did not detect any PCBs in the fish samples collected. Mink Meat and hide Metals: Low/medium The literature shows that No No–not a priority (Trappers?) contaminants (Metals and organics) accumulate in Need additional information about mink, primarily in the kidney. the fur/coat Other parts of the animal do not appear to accumulate high levels of contaminants.

45 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 9: Common Plant and Animal Resources near LAFB: Potential for Human Exposure to Contaminants Exposure Portion of the Exposure Concern Supporting Sampled at plant/animal Recommend Sampling (Yes/No) Name Concern Harvester, Evidence/Scientific LAFB3 frequently Consumer1 hunter, and/or Literature (Yes/No) used worker2 Moose Meat and Metals: Low Moose feed on primarily No No–Collecting samples of moose organs Medium/High aquatic vegetation and may not be the best use of limited willows in the summer; resources. We know that cadmium POPs: Low woody plants, aquatic accumulates in the organs of these vegetation, and barks during animals. Advisories have already the winter. been established for the consumption of moose. However, Moose can accumulate sampling would serve to confirm cadmium in their kidney and whether moose near LAFB have to a lesser extent in the elevated levels of cadmium and liver. other metals in their organs. If it is determined that people are consuming moose liver, it should be considered for sampling. Muskrats Meat, hide, Metals: Medium Muskrats specifically feed No Consumption of the whole muskrat often used Low/medium on plants such as cattails, would increase exposure. There is whole arrowhead, bulrush and not sufficient information in the POPs: Low occasionally animal matter literature to make a sampling such as clams, carp, recommendation. If people are crayfish, turtles, and snails consuming a significant number of muskrat, it should be considered for sampling.

46 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Otters (especially males) are not likely to accumulate high levels of contaminants from one source area because they typically feed from a large geographic area (Anderson-Bledsoe and Scanlon 1983).

One noteworthy observation is that mercury appeared to accumulate at high concentrations in the fur of otters.

47 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Raccoons Meat Meat (including Metals: Raccoons have been shown No Yes, Raccoons make a good organs) and Low/medium to accumulate high indicator species for higher food Fats and Oils Skin concentrations of POPs and chain consumers due to their diet. POPs: metals mainly because they Meat and fat should be sampled. Fat, Oil Low/medium for are omnivores and eat a Rendering the animals fat into oils meat. wide variety of plants and could concentrate fat-soluble Medium/High for animals including aquatic contaminants. fat and oils species. Turtles and Meat Metals: Low/medium Turtles can accumulate very No Yes–Turtles may be a good frogs Medium high concentrations of POPs indicator species for aquatic and/or because of their habitats terrestrial wildlife, depending on POPs: and diet. Frogs may the species. If older freshwater Medium/High accumulate contaminants, turtles do not contain elevated (highest but not to the same extent levels of POPs or metals then it is concern in that turtles do. unlikely that other aquatic species turtles) will contain high enough levels of contaminants to be of health concern.

48 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Table 9: Common Plant and Animal Resources near LAFB: Potential for Human Exposure to Contaminants Exposure Portion of the Exposure Concern Supporting Sampled at plant/animal Recommend Sampling (Yes/No) Name Concern Harvester, Evidence/Scientific LAFB3 frequently Consumer1 hunter, and/or Literature (Yes/No) used worker2 Water fowl Meat and Metals: Low/medium Studies have measured high No Yes–Mergansers or goldeneye (Ducks, organs Medium levels of POPs and some ducks would receive highest geese) metals in water fowl. The sampling priority. However, they Other parts of POPs: potential for these animals were not among the species listed the animal Medium/High to accumulate contaminants as common wildlife resources. may be used in fat tissue and organs Mallards or black ducks would also as well. varies by species. Bottom be good species to sample. feeders, especially those that consume fish and shellfish, accumulate more contaminants than grazers (e.g., Canadian geese). Other Wildlife Meat Metals: Low Low Sufficient information was No No–there is very little information - Porcupine not identified in the scientific regarding the extent to which these - Fisher POPs: Low literature to provide other wildlife species accumulate -Red squirrels evidence that this resource contaminants in their tissues and may be a potential health organs. However, unless these concern or to rule it out as a species are consumed frequently, concern. it is unlikely that they contain contaminants at high enough concentrations to pose a health hazard.

49 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

2 This includes people who harvest the plants and make products (e.g., baskets, pottery, and clothing) from plant materials. The exposure categories (e.g., low, medium, and high) are assigned assuming that workers are harvesting in areas that may contain levels of contamination that could pose a health concern or hazard. If workers are harvesting from uncontaminated areas or areas where contamination is not of health concern then exposure is not a concern.

3 Have environmental sampling efforts at LAFB directly or indirectly helped to assess contaminant levels in the specified resource? In most cases plant and terrestrial wildlife samples have not been collected. However, this column can be updated as additional sampling efforts are undertaken by the Air Force, Tribe, or other state or local entities.

50 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

REFERENCES

[ABBES] ABB Environmental Services. 1997a. Basewide Surface Water/Sediment Operable Unit (OU13) Remedial Investigation Report - Final, Volumes I to XI April 1997.

ABB Environmental Services. 1997b. Operable Unit 13 (OU13) Record of Decision-Final May 1997.

Agricultural Research. 2000. Phytoremediation: Using Plants To Clean Up Soils. June 2000. Available at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jun00/soil0600.pdf

Air Force Base Conversion Agency (AFBCA)1996. Record of Decision for the Disposal of Loring Air Force Base, Maine, April 1996.

Albers PH, Sileo L, Mulhem BM. 1986. Effects of Environmental Contaminants on Snapping Turtles of a Tidal Wetland. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 15:39-49. Cited in ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for Chlordane. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; May 1994. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31.html

Anderson-Bledsoe K.L. and Scanlon P.F. 1983. Heavy Metal Concentrations in Tissues of Virginia River Otters. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol: 30, 442-447. 1983.

Arnold S.M., Zarnke R.L., Lynn T.V., Chimonas M.R., and Frank A. 2005. Public Health Evaluation of Cadmium Concentrations in Liver and Kidney of Moose (Alces alces) from Four Areas of Alaska. Science of the Total Environment. 2005. In Press.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990. Toxicological Profile for Silver. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; December 1990. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp146.html

ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for Chlordane. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; May 1994. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31.html

ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; August 1995. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp69.html

ATSDR. 1999a. Public Health Assessment Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, Aroostook County, Maine. CERCLIS No. ME9570024522. March 2, 1999. Accessed November 22, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/loring/laf_toc.html

ATSDR. 1999b. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; March 1999. Accessed November 1, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.html

51 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

ATSDR. 1999c. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; July 1999. Accessed March 2, 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp5.html

ATSDR. 2000. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html. Last accessed 30 March 2005.

ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; September 2002. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.html

ATSDR. 2003a. Toxicological Profile for Selenium. September 2003. Accessed November 17, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp92-c6.pdf

ATSDR. 2003b. Toxicological Profile for Zinc (Draft for Public Comment). September 2003. Accessed November 1, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp60.html

ATSDR. 2005a. Toxicological Profile for Lead (Draft for Public Comment). September 2005. Accessed March 2, 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.html

ATSDR. 2005b. Toxicological Profile for Barium (Draft for Public Comment). September 2005. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp24.html

Bacon CE, Jarman WM, Estes JA, et al. 1999. Comparison of Organochlorine Contaminants Among Sea Otter (enhydra lutris) Populations in California and Alaska. Environ Toxicol Chem. 18(3):452-458. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Beyer W.N., Connor E.E., and Gerould S. 1994. Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife. J. Wildlife Management. 58(2). 375-382. 1994. Accessed February 28, 2006. http://www.sfws.auburn.edu/ditchkoff/Nutrition%20Class%20Papers/Beyer%20et%20al.%201994.pdf

Blus L.J., Henny C.J., and Mulhern B.M. 1987. Concentrations of Metals in Mink and Other Mammals from Washington and Idaho. Environmental Pollution. 44: 307-318. 1987.

Boon D.Y. and Soltanpour P.N. 1992. Lead, Cadmium, and Zinc Contamination of Aspen Garden Soils and Vegetation. J Environmental Quality: 21 (1), 82-86. 1992.

Botero JE, Meyer MW, Hurley SS, et al. 1996. Residues of Organochlorines in Mallards and Blue-winged Teal Collected in Colombia and Wisconsin, 1984-1989. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 31(2):225-231. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

52 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Brumbaugh W.G., Schmitt C.J., May T.W. 2005. Concentrations of Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc in Fish from Mining-Influenced Waters of Northeastern Oklahoma: Sampling of Blood, Carcass, and Liver for Aquatic Biomonitoring. Arch. Environ. Toxicol. 49: 76-88.2005.

Burger J., Gaines K.F., Lord C.G., Brisbin I.L., Shukla S., and Gochfeld M. 2002. Metal Levels in Racoon Tissues: Differences On and Off the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Environmental Monitoring and Asessment. 74: 67-84. 2002.

Chan HM, Trifonopoulos M, Ing A, et al. 1999. Consumption of Freshwater Fish in Kahnawake: Risks and Benefits. Environ Res 80:S213-S222. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Datta S, McConnell LL, Baker JE, et al. 1998. Evidence for Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Polychlorinated Biphenyls to the Lake Tahoe Basin, California-Nevada. Environ Sci Technol 32 (10):1378-1385. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Davis E. 2003. Health Hazards of Mercury. Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts. Summer 2003. Accessed March 8, 2006. http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/mercury.html#author

DiFranco J., Bacon L., Mower B. and D. Courtemach. 1995. Fish Tissue Contamination in Maine lakes - data report. State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Augusta, ME. Cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Environmental Contaminants in Fish from Mere Brook, U.S. Naval Air Station, Brunswick Maine. February 1997. Accessed March 15, 2006. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/mainecontaminants/PDF%20files/BKT_Study.PDF

[DOI-BLM] Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Appendix D: Native American Resource Uses. November 2005. Accessed December 19, 2005. http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/VegEIS/per/PER_Appendix_D_Native_American_Resource_Use.pdf

Dudka S. and Miller WP. 1999. Accumulation of Potentially Toxic Elements in Plants and their Transfer to Human Food Chain. J. Environ. Science and Health, B34 (4): 681-708.

Eastern Research Group (ERG). 2001. Summary Report for the ATSDR Expert Panel Meeting on Tribal Exposures to Environmental Contaminants in Plants. Contract No. 205- 95-0901. March 23, 2001. Available at the following web-link: http://www.engg.ksu.edu/CHSR/outreach/tosnac/docs/NAreport_fnl032301.pdf

Eisler R. 1993. Zinc Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Laurel, Maryland. Biological Report 10 Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report 26. Accessed March 10, 2006. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/infobase/eisler/CHR_26_Zinc.pdf

53 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Elkin B.T. and Bethke R.W. 1995. Environmental Contaminants in Caribou in the Northwest Territories, Canada. The Science of the Total Environment 160/161: 307-321. 1995.

Erdman J.A., Vradenburg L., and Smith S.C. 2003. Willow-Leaf Analysis Determines Extent of Mine Contamination Plume on the Willow Creek Fkodplain, Creede, Cororado. Willow Creek Reclamation Committee. 2003. Accessed March 3, 2006. http://www.willowcreede.org/waterquality/Willow%20Final.pdf [EXTOXNET] Extension Toxicology Network. 1993. Toxicology Information Briefs. Last Updated 1993. Accessed February 9, 2006. http://extoxnet.orst.edu/tibs/bioaccum.htm

Falandysz J., Syymczyk-Kobrzynska K., Brzostowski A., Zalewski K., and Zasadowski A. 2005. Concentrations of Heavy Metals in the Tissues of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) from the Region of Warmia and Mazury, Poland. Food Additives and Contaminants. 22 (2):141-149. February 2005.

Fiegl J.L., et al. Available at: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/ehe/html_kag/kimweb/MEOP/ All of the information presented within this website has been adapted from a report from Northwestern University written by Joseph L. Fiegl, Bryan P. McDonnell, Jill A. Kostel, Mary E. Finster, and Dr. Kimberly Gray entitled: "A Resource Guide: The Phytoremediation of Lead to Urban, Residential Soils". Last accessed August 2006.

Foley RE. 1992. Organochlorine residues in New York Waterfowl Harvested by Hunters in 1983-1984. Environ Monit Assess 21:37-48. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Gamberg M. 2002. Contaminants in Yukon Moose and Caribou – 2001. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Northern Contaminants Program. March 2002. Accessed March 8, 2006. http://www.contaminants.ca/done/reports/1g-contamMoosCarReports/reports/2001%20Report.pdf

Gamberg M., Boila G., Stern G., and Roach P. 2005a. Cadmium, mercury, and selenium concentrations in mink (Mustela vison) from Yukon, Canada, 351-352: 523-529. 2005.

Gamberg M., Palmer M., and Roach P. 2005b. Temporal and Geographic Trends in Trace Element Concentrations in Moose from Yukon, Canada. Science of the Total Environment, 351-352: 530-538. 2005.

Gamberg M. et al. 2005c. Spatial and Temporal Trends of Comtaminants in Terrestrial Biota from the Canadian Arctic. Science of the Total Environment 351-352: 148-164. 2005.

54 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Gillan KA, Hasspieler BM, Russell RW, et al. 1998. Ecotoxicological Studies in Amphibian Populations of Southern Ontario. J Great Lakes Res 24(1):45-54. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Harding L.E., Harris M.L., and Elliott J.E. 1998. Heavy and Trace Metals in Wild Mink (Mustela vison) and River Otter (Lontra canadensis) Captured on Rivers Receiving Metals Discharges. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61: 600-607. 1998.

Harper, B. 2006. Provisional Exposure Factors for the Loring Public Health Assessment (DRAFT). 2006.

Hebert CE, Gloosehenko V, Haffner GD, et al. 1993. Organic Contaminants in Snapping Turtle (chelydra serpentiana) Populations from Southern Ontario, Canada. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 24:35-43. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Larison J.R., Likens G.E., Fitzpatrick J.W., and Crock J.G. 2000. Cadmium Toxicity Among Wildlife in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Nature; 406. July 13, 2000.

Madigosky S.R., Alvarez-Hernandez X., and Glass J. 1991. Lead, Cadmium, and Aluminum Accumulation in the Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii G.) Collected from Roadside Drainage Ditches in Louisiana. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20: 253-258. 1991.

Mochizuki M. et al. 2002. Cadmium Contamination in Wild Birds as an Indicator of Environmental Pollution. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 73: 229-235. 2002.

Musante CL, Ellingwood MR, Stilwell DE. 1993. Cadmium contamination of deer livers in Connecticut. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 51(6):833-846. Cited in ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. July 1999.

MWH Americas. 2005. Former Loring Air Force Base Five-Year Review Report 2000 2000). August 2005. Accessed March 15, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/loring/236995.pdf

National Park Service, Water Resources Divisions, Water Operations Branch. 1997a. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia Lead Entry. July 1, 1997. Accessed November 12, 2005. http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic//lead.pdf

National Park Service, Water Resources Divisions, Water Operations Branch. 1997b. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia Silver Entry. July 1, 1997. Accessed November 12, 2005. http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic/silver.pdf

55 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

[NRC] National Research Council. 1996. Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production. National Academy Press. Chapter 6 (Public Health Concerns About Chemical Constituents in Treated Wastewater and Sludge). Accessed November 3, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/owm/pipes/sludmis/mstr-ch6.pdf

NESCAUM. 1998. Northeast States and Eastern Canadian Provinces -Mercury Study - a Framework for Action. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Boston, MA. As cited in ATSDR. 1999b. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. March 1999. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.html

Norstrom R.J. 1992. Understanding Bioaccumulation of POPs in Food Webs: Chemical, Biological, Ecological, and Environmental Considerations. Environ Sci & Pollut Res, 9 (5): 300-303. 1992.

[NCP] Northern Contaminants Program. 2003. Canadian Artic Contaminants Assessment Report II: Contaminant, Levels, Trends, and Effects in the Biological Environment. 2003. Accessed February 9, 2006. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ncp/pub/pdf/bio/bio_e.pdf

[NYDEC] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. Organochlorine Residues in New York State Waterfowl. Updated February 2003. Accessed February 3, 2006. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/hoa1b2d.htm#MONITORING

Osowski SL, Brewer LW, Baker OE, et al. 1995. The Decline of Mink in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina: The role of contaminants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 29(3):418-423. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Poole KG, Elkin BT, Bethke RW. 1998. Organochlorine and heavy metal contaminants in wild mink in western Northwest Territories, Canada. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 34(4):406-413. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Renzoni A, Zino F., and Franchi E. 1998. Mercury Levels Along the Food Chain and Risk for Exposed Populations. Environmental Research, Section A, 77: 68-72. 1998.

Robinson, W.O., Whetstone, R.R., & Edgington, G. 1950. The Occurrence of Barium in Soils and Plants. US Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull, 1013: 1-36.

56 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

Schmitt CJ, Zajicek JL, Peterman PH. 1990. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: Residues of Organochlorine Chemicals in U.S. Freshwater Fish, 1976-1984. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 19:748-781. Cited in ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; September 2002. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.html

Skinner LC. 1992. Chemical Contaminants in Wildlife from the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne and the Vicinity of the General Motors Corporation/Central Foundry Division Massena, New York Plant. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. Cited in ATSDR. 2000b. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; November 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html.

Sowles J., Mower B., Davies S., Tsomides L. and D. Hague. 1996. Surface Water Ambient Toxic Monitoring Program, 1994. Technical Report. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Augusta, ME. Cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office. Special Project Report: FY97-MEFO-3-EC. Environmental Contaminants in Fish from Mere Brook. U.S. Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine. February 1997. Accessed March 15, 2006. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/mainecontaminants/PDF%20files/BKT_Study.PDF

Stinson M.D. and Eaton D.L. 1983. Concentrations of Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, and Copper in the Cratfish (pacifasticus leniusculus) Obtained from a Lake Receiving Urban Runoff. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12: 693-700. 1983.

Thornton I. 1992. Sources and Pathways of Cadmium in the Environment. IARC Sci Publ. 118:149-62.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Soil Quality Information Sheet Soil Quality Indicators: pH. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. January 1998. Accessed November 17, 2005. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/files/indicate.pdf

USDA. 2000. Phytoremediation: Using Plants To Clean Up Soils. Agricultural Research Magazine. June 2000. Accessed November 18, 2005. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jun00/soil0600.pdf

[USDOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 1998. Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. September 1998. Accessed November 1, 2005. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/bjcor-133.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 1989. Pesticide Environmental Fate One Line Summary: DDT (p, p'). Washington, D.C. Cited in CH2MHill. 2003. Action Memorandum/Non-Time Critical Remedial Action Plan at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California Site 7—Station Landfill. September 2003. Accessed March 15, 2006.

57 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. EPA 823-R-92-008a and 008b. Washington, DC. Accessed March 16, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/fish/residuevol1.pdf

EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. December 1993. Accessed February 28, 2006. http://web.ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/methtool/dsp_wildlife.cfm

EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, Appendix G. EPA/540/R-95/128. Accessed November 1, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/soil/toc.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/soil/appd_g.pdf

EPA. 2002. Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue, A Global Response. Office of International Affairs. April 2002. Accessed March 14, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/international/toxics/pop.htm#pops

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office. 1997. Special Project Report: FY97-MEFO-3-EC. Environmental Contaminants in Fish from Mere Brook. U.S. Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine. February 1997. Accessed March 15, 2006. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/mainecontaminants/PDF%20files/BKT_Study.PDF

University of Texas. 2001. Accounting for Mercury: Sources and Fluxes in the United States. March 2001. Accessed November 18, 2005. http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/dfe/post.pdf

White DH. 1979. Nationwide Residues of Organochlorine Compounds in Wings of Adult Mallards and Black Ducks. Pestic Monit J 13:12-16. Cited in ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for Chlordane. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; May 1994. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31.html

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2002. Loring Air Force Base Operable Unit 13 Final 2001 Long- term Monitoring Report. July 2002.

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2004. Loring Air Force Base Operable Unit 13 2003 Monitoring Report. July 2004.

[WHO-IPCS] World Health Organization-International Programme on Chemical Safety. 1989. Environmental Health Criteria 85: Lead – Environmental Aspects. 1989. Accessed March 7, 2006. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc85.htm#SubSectionNumber:1.2.3

WHO-IPCS. 1990. Environmental Health Criteria 107: Barium. 1990. Accessed February 13, 2006. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc107.htm#SubSectionNumber:4.1.4

58 ATSDR HEALTH CONSULTATION for and the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians Loring Air Force Base

[WHO] World Health Organization. 2001. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 33 Barium and Barium Compounds: Environmental Aspects. Accessed March 8, 2006. http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad33.htm#6.1

WHO. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 44 Silver and Silver Compounds: Environmental Aspects. Accessed November 2, 2005. http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad44.htm

Wren C.D. 1984. Distribution of Metals in Tissues of Beaver, Raccoon, and Otter from Ontario, Canada. The Science of the Total Environment. 34: 177-184. 1984.

Wren C.D., Fischer K.L., and Stokes P.M. 1988. Levels of Lead, Cadmium, and Other Elements in Mink and Otter from Ontario, Canada. Environmental Pollution. 52: 193-202. 1988.

Yates D.E. et al. 2005. Mercury Levels in Mink (Mustela vison) and River Otter (Lontra canadensis) from Northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology. 14: 263-274. 2005.